*

. . .

( --------------

ka ^

Jr ~

I I1'
m lm p p

SANTI NIKETAN
V ISW A B H A R A T I L 1B R A R T

----------------------------------- 1

jj

8 1 0 -9

F x jJ t|

JL i

XIX i m

AN AOOitlNT OF Tffi D!BBENT EXIS6f'

SVSEMS Of SANSKirT GUMMAf

BEING

THE VISHWANATH NARAYAK MANDUK GOLD MEDAL PRZE-ES 5AY F O 1909

BY

SHRIPAD KRISHNA BELVALKAR, M. A., Ph. D.

PUBLISHED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVEBSITT OF BOMBA*

AtURIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHOR POONA, s ili

Copiea of thi* book can be kad by addressing to the Oriental Books Supplging Agency, 13 Shukramar, Poona. Indian price Rs. 2-0-0. Foreig price 4 shillings. American price one doliar. AU price* include poetage.

BYTHE SAME AUTHOR

THE

UTTABA-EMA-CHARITA
OF

BHAVABHTI MARATHI TRANSLATION Over 275 pages

Price

Rs. 2-0-0

To be kad of
The OHentl Books Snplying Agency 13 Shukrawar, POONA

Printed by Aant Vinayak Patrvardkan at the Aryabkushan Press, Poona, and pnblished by Shripad Krislma Belvalkar at Poona. First edition, 1915, One Tkousand Copies

eONTENTS

P agb

.............. vii PREFACE 1 . Grammatical speculatious in India: Their extent ^ ftud value ... ,,, ... ... ... 1 2 . Early grammatical specalations: In the Vedas, ......................... 1 3. In the Brhmaas, a n d .............................. 3 4. In allied works ................................................ 4 5. The predecessors of Yska ......................... 4 6. Yskas Nirukta: Its date ......................... 6 7. Nature of Yskas w o r k .............................. 8 8. Yskas successors .................................... 9 9. The so-called Aindra treatises ......................... 10

10. The School of Pini

...................... 13

11. Pinis date ....................................................13 12. The view that Pini cannot be placed bofore B. C. 350 esamined ........................................15 13. Known facts about Pinis life................... 18 14. Charactcr of Pinis work ......................... 19 15. Technical devices used by Pini .............. 22 10. Treatises accessory to Pinis Ashtdhyy ... 25 17. Ktyyana : His (late .........................................28 18. Nature of Ktyyanas vrtikas to Pinis g ra m m a r...................................................... 29 19. Vrtikakras before and after Ktyyana ... 31 20. Patajali: His date and personai history ... 32 21. The VySkaraa-Mahbhshya as marking the end of the first period in the history of the Pinya s c h o o l...........................................34 22. Chandragomin and his work ......................... 34 23. The Kik of Jayditya and Vm ana........ 35 24. The indebtedness of the Kik to Chandragomin 37 25. Jinendrabuddhis Ny5 sa o the Kik........ 38 20. Haradattas Padamafijar on the KilS ... 39 27. Bhartiharis Vkyapad!ya ......................... 40

iv. 28.

Contents
P agb

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

Kaiyyatas Pradpa as marking the end of secojjd period in the history of the Piniya school ........................................................... 41 Recasts of the Ashtdhyy: The RpamSlS ... 43 RSmachandras Prakriy-kaunmd, and its comm entaries........................................... 45 Bhattojis SiddhSnta-kaumud and other works 46 The works of NSgeaa and of VaidyanStha Pyaguda....................................................... 49 Grammatical works outside the Dkshita school 50 Abridgements and manuals ........................ 51 Later'history of treatises aecessoryto Pinis g ra m m a r........................................................51 .Dhtuptha ...............................................51 Gaaptha ... ... 53 Lignusana ............. ......................... 53 Udiptha................................................. ... 54 Paribhshs ...............................................54 Resum of the history of the Pginyaschool... 55 The 6hndra sch o o l ................................ 57 The dafToFTTEahdragomin ........................ 58 Nature of his work ................................... 59 Accessory treatises of the (JhSndra grammar ... 60 Later history of the ChSndra school ..................61 The Jainendra school ........................ 62 Date of the Jainendra Vykaraa ................ 64 Its charactcr, a n d ........................................... 65 .............................................. 66 Later history The kat3yana school ........................ 68 Its founder not the ancient katyana but his modern name-sake .................................... 68 Character of (Skatyanas abdSnusana ... 69 Other works of this school ........................ 71 Its later h i s t o r y ............................................ 71 The Hemachandra sc h o o l ................... 73 Life of Hemachandra ................................... 73 Nature of Hemachandras abdSnuaSsana ... 75 Treatises accessory to the abdnusana ... 77

Conimis

v.
P agb

60. Commentaries on the fabdusana,...... 78 61. Digests, manuals, and other miscellaneous works 79 62. Conclusion of the Hemachandra school ... 80 63. The Kitantra school ........................ 81 64. Traditional account about arvavarm&n, the founder of the school ................................... 82 65. Evidence for later interpolations in the Ktantra 83 SStraptba...................................... 66. Nature of arvavarmans w o rk ................. 86 67. Early history of the school ....................... 87 68. Durgasimha and his vritti ....................... 87 69. Commentaries on Durgasiiiihas v ritti...... 88 70. Treatises accessory to the Ktantra ............. 89 71. History of the Ktantra school in Bengal ... 90 72. History of the Ktantra school in Ksmra ... 91 73. The SBrasvata school : Its d a t e ...... 91 74. Special ftalares of the Srasvata ............ 93 95 75. Its traditional founder .................................. 76. Srasvata-prakriy of AnubhStisvar0pchrya... 90 77. Commeutators of Srasvata-prakriy ............ 90 78. Commentators of the Srasvata independently of the Prakriy ..................................................102 79. Treatises accessory to the Srasvata ............ 103 80. General review of the history of the Srasvata school ............................................................ 103 81. The school of Bopadeva ....................... 104 82. Date of Bopadeva........................................ 104 83. Object of Bopadevas Mugdhabodha ... ... 105 84. Later history of the school ....................... 107 85. Supplements and accessory treatises of the Mugdhabodha ..................................................108 86. The Jaumara school of Kramadvara ... 108 87. Its special features ......................................109 88. Commentaries on the Jau m ara................. 109 89. Its present sta tu s...................................... 110 90. The Sanpadma SChool of Padmanhhadatta 111 91. Its special features ..................................... 111 92. Commentaries on the Saupadma................ 112

vi.

Conients
P ag

93. Treatises accessory to the Saupadma ............... 112 94. ts prestent s ta t s ....................................................113 95. Later sectarian schools ........................ 113 96. HarinSmSnmta .................................... ... 113 97. PrabodhaprakSa.................................. ... 114 98. Lesser Manuals and schoolbooks ... 115 99. Oonclusion............................................................... 116 A PPEN D IX I. Chndra-vara-stri .............. 117 APPENDIX II. JogvrjVs Pidaprakaraasagati... 181 APPENDIX III. A Ohronological Conspectus ofthe different Schools, separatelg in a bag ... ............ GENERAL INDEX ... 121

System of Transliteration

i u S ri r li e ai o au

**

l5

3f

kakha ga ta, * pa 5 5

gha a * *

cha chha ja * ta * ya * ? o * ^

jh a a * *

tha da dha a * * * *

tha da dha na
?5

pha ba bha ma *

ra la

va a

sha sa ha a Visarga ; Nasalized n as in *nm m Nasalized * as in fhmrr

P R E nee

The follotdng essav (with the nom de plme srraTTWfl' nnETT:) w<w offered in conapetifcion for the Vishvranath Narayan Mandlik Gold Medal of the Univers<ty of Bonrbay. It was approved by the *Mge vvith the rernark: It de serves to be printed, as it collects togetber a gtcat deal of interesting historical information. It ishow accordingly published with the kind permission ofthe University of Bombav. la preparing the essvy I bave utilped the labonrs of most of the pevioas workers in the field. to whose \vritings I bave given constant references in the foot-notes. I also enjoyed the exceptional advantage of having at my disposal the entire Government Mannscripts Libr.iry at the Dacm College, Poona, and was in fact, at the time of ivritiog this essay, actually engage l in preparinst a DesBriptive Catalogne of the grammatical works in that Library. % As the title indicates, it is an e s ^ a mere tentative attemptand not a profound treatige; anl I have thought it worth tvhilfe printing it merely because, as far as I know, no work of the kind, covering exactly the fleld of this essay, has so far nppeared. In the Grnndriss der Indo-Arigchen Philologie there was to appear a work tvhich would tava made the writing of this essay superfluous, birt apparently nothicg bas come of it so far. I have male a few necessary changea in the essry as it was originally submitted, especially in the light of some kind snggestions received from Professor Hari Mahadeva Bhadkamkar of the Wilson College, Bombav, and from Professor Vaijanath Kashinath Bajavade of the Fergusson College, Poona, who were appointed judges for the essay. My oli and honoured teacher, Professor K. B. Pathak, had also the goodness to read the essay throngh and point out crtam inaccuraciesof fact and statement, for which I am deeply grateful to him. For the most part, hovever, the

Preface essay reinains just as it was written in 1909 with the esception of the Chronological Conspectus and the General Indes, without which no pnblishe 1 work of this nature could be regarded a completc. I do not, of course, expect that the essay would be entirely free from mistakes both of omiesion and of commiesion. New facts are coming to light every day ; and even of facts that have been already known, it is too much to hopeso numerous are tho workers in the field and so scattered their writingstbat I have taken into consideration ali, or even the most important alL I would most thankfully receive, therefore, any corrections or suggestions for improvement. I only hope that the essay contains enough to justify its publication in this present form.
P
oona,

Notember 1914

PostScript : Little did I espect, when I wrote the above in November last, that one of the judges for the essayFrofessor H. M. Bhadkamkar of the Wilson College, Bombaywould not live to see it in print. But it is the unerpected tbat has happened. Professor Bhadkamkar took a genuine interest in me and my work, and by writing this postscript I wish to keep his name permanently associated with vrhat isthough not the firstyet one of the earliest fruits of my literary activity.
P
bcoan

Tr . ,. . 15th July 1915.

C o lleg e, P oona,

>

S. K. Belvaliur.

4IS ACCOUNT

at THE D I E f t K N r E A IST iC

S V S T B M S O P S a N S K R IT G R A M M H R
1. drammatlcal speculatloos In Indla: Their extent aad valne. It wou!d be hardly an exaggeration to say that in no other country has the Science of grammar ben studied with such a zeal and carried to such a perfection as it has been in India. Eve a bare catalogue of the names of grammarians ancient and modern and of such of their works as are stili preserved to us can amply bear out the truth of this assertion. On the lowest calulation there are yet current in various parts of India nearly a dozen different schools of Sanskrit grammar, at least three hundred writers in the field including those that are known to us only from quotations, and more than a thousand separate treatises original as well as explanatory. And it is not raerely the quantity^-for that need not be a source of unalloyed pride to any peoplebut the quality of the work produced that has won for it a recognition and an honorable mention even at the hands of the rigorously scietific philologists of our own day, who are not ashamed to own their obligations to works and authors of over twenty-five hundred year old.

Early grammatical speculations

2 - Orammatlcal speculations In the Vedas. The earliest spe

culations of a grammatical nature are to be met with in the later portions of the Rigveda itself ; for, even if we pehdemn Patajalis explanation (MahSbhshya: Kielhorn, Vol. i, p. 3) of w tb y or his explanation (Ibid. p. 4 ; Rigveda viii. 69.12) of tur ftpsv: by as being too subtle for the Vedic
1 [ Sk. Gr. ]

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

2-]

bards, stili passages, such as Rigveda x. 125 or Taittirya SamhitS vi, 4. 7. 3, already evince the consciousness that the study pf the forms o speech is of sufficient importance to be pursued by itself independently of the dealings between men and men which are rendered possible by them. It is not, however, necessary for our purpose to put together ali the Vedic passages that have or can be made to have a grammatical significance. Suffice it to say that the available data do not warrant the supposition that the 1Seers of the Mantras had made any considerable advance in the science of grammar. Indeed, it was not their business to do that. To observe the silent or violent vrorkings of Nature and to record in fitting verse the feelings and thoughts awakened by their contemplation was enough to employ ali their leisure hours. Philosophy arises only when the harmony of life is disturbed from within (or from without) so that the old child-like faith in the world and its laws becomes no longer possible; and grammar is a species of philosophy. The study of grammar receives a sudden impetus when one form of speech comes into cldse contact with another and a different form. Thus, for example, the discovery of Sanskrit by modern Europe has created a revolution in the science of philology, just as, in ancient times, the Roman conquest of Greece and, later, the discovery of Greek after the fall of Constantinople led to equally momentous consequences in the development of thought. The same result is also produced when in course of time there arise inevitable dialectical peculiarities within a language. These are either a consequence of the impact of the different races one of which conquers and dominates over the re s t/ or they may be due
1 Compare Tantra-vrtijj^, Benarea edition, p. 216, 2 Until the Greeki began to teach their language to the Romns, Greek grammar made flttle progress.

[ - 3

Early grcnmatical speculations

to a change in the climatic conditiosto the people having migrated from one place to another and modified their expressions and articulations in the course of their journey. Something of this sort must have happened when the ancient Sanskrit diverged into the different forms of Prkrit, and we are probably to explain in the same way the considerable differepre that is observable in the language of the Brhmaas when contrasted with that of the ancient SamhitSs.1 3. Oramnuitlcal peculatloos la tbe Bribnuu.When we come to the Brhmaic speculations on the nature and meaning of the utterances of the ancient sages, we find that they have already lost any living touch with the old forra of the language. Old forms and old words as also old ideas had grown obsolete giving place to netver, less poetic and more practical ones.3 Since, however, the Sacred Scriptures (the Vedas) were composed in the older form of the language, aud since, for various reasons, it was deeraed necessary to preserve intact from generation to generation the inherited stock of Vedic poetry, attention came naturally to be focussed upon the peculiarities of that form of the language, and this was the beginning of grammar proper. The main interest of the Brhmaas, however, was sacer dotai. They busied themselves with the details of the ritual and tried to discoveror inventa rational, that is to say, a mythological justification for every act of the priest and every element of the sacrifice. If they discussed questions of grammar or phoneties at ali, thejr
1 Dr. Burnell 'i n his essay on the Aindra school of Grammarians nots, without some contaot with foreign peoples, and bitter disputs among religi* ons seots at homet sucb highly eveloped enquiry into language as Pitinis treatise disp)ays is oontrary to ali ex* periliibe. 2 Compare tbe Arctic home in the Vedas, p. 230.

Systems o f Sam krit Grammar

3-3

aroe in raainly by way of illustration, or because no other equally cogent explanation of the Sarhit passage in question \yas at hand. We cannot make much capital out of their stray and half poetic utterances. 4. Grammotlcal speculations In allled works.It was in the next period that the study of grammar as a science was taken in earnest. This was the period when the scatterd hymns of the Vedas came to be collected into familybooks and elaborate rules were framed for the regulation of the parishads or charaas.* To help students in their task there also came into being about the same time various manuals on phonetics, which dealt with letters, accents, quantity, pronunciation, and euphonic rules. In course of time the retentive faculty came to be cultivated to an extent which is without any parallel in the history of the world. A further advance was made by the constitution of the Padaptha, commonly ascribed to kalya, which resolved the euphonic combinations and gave each word, each member of a corapound, each prefix of the verb, as also each suffix or termination of the noun separately. The stock of grammatical notions familiar to this stage of development, though not very large, is already sufficient to indicate the earnestness of the search for truth. 6. Tha predeceasors of Y8akn.We are not yet certain when the art of writing came to be inventedor introducedin Ancient India. It was certainly much earlier than what Max Mtiller one believed it to be.3 What* ever that period might be, it must have been prior to the production of the Pratifikhya literature; and by this we
1 8ee Maz MSUer'a H l|tory of Anoient Indiau literature, Snd edition pp. 128, 187, &c. Op. Taittirlya rayaka, vii. 1. Hietory of Anoient Indian Literature. p. 520. Coopare oo the eubject Biiblee ontribution to the Grnndriei der IndoArnehen Philologie, eapeciell page 18.

8
8

[- 5

Pudectssors o f Vska

raean not the Prtikhyas in their present formwhich are post-Pinya and pre-suppose much of his termiaologybut in some earlier form and noder whatewer other names they may have been then known. The contributions whichtthese prototypes of our present Prltifkhyas made to the science of grammar can now, in the absence of ay really representative works of that class, be merely guessed at. If the^nature and contents of our existing Prtikhya literatra can safely be made the basis of any inference we may suppose that these earlier treatises i. classifiedthe Vedic texts into the four forms of speech known to Yska ; 2. framed and carefully defined some of the primitive9 safijs or technical terms ; and 3. possibly also made some more or less crude at* tempts to reduce the words to their elements and explain the mode of their grammatical formation. The really Creative period of this science is just this. Had there been for this period any works extant, they would have shown us Yska in the making as Yska hiraself, to some extent, shows us Pini in the making. It is a great pity, therefore, that the period should be ali blank to us. Since, however, these tentative sallies of the earlier authors were not probably definite enough to constitute a system, and since we have here to treat of systems of Sanskrit grammar, we must next pass on to Yska3, who, althoUgh a philologist ^and not a grammarian as such, can for our purpose be regarded as forming the link between the primitive Frtikhya type of spe1 Goldstficker, P ini: his plaee Burnell would cail heae the i Sanakri literatra, pp. 183 terme of the Ainra Sehool of and ff. ; fieprint of the eame Grammariaas. hy Psiai Office, pp. .141 andif. 3 lftaka calja hie oa vork a 2 Primitive: thote nameiy that oomphmieat to g r a m m a r : PSini peauppoees and oaee RawtW?T RinW ; i withou ezplaiaiug them, Dr.

Sys(ems o f Sanskrit Grammar

5- 3

culation on the one hand, and the later Piniya mode of thought on the other. 6. Yitkas Nirakta: its date. In a memorable passage Yska himself roughly indicates the course of the development of Vedic studies before his time, and, reflecting the achievements made upto his days in the Sciences of grammar and philology, contributes his own quota to the same. The passage has been variously interpreted, but the explanation given below may be found perhaps as acceptable as any other.1 It mentions three distinct periods of intllectual development corresponding rough* ly to sections 2-5 above. Unortunately the time of YSska is by no means yet certain. It depends for the most part, on the date that is to be assigned to Pini, between whom and this great vrriter at least a century, if not raore, must be supposed to have elapsed in order to account properly for ali the advances3 in the matter
,
1 m w e w w r ID PIT

1 M a n tra a

( These are the original Seers of

.

Tbeae correspond to tbe authora of

family-booke.
i* fglff'lm * * * * * * -( . a*. J * j '

tbe BrSbmaio peoulatiooa; poesibIr alaoto the oompilera of tha

Th#eare the auore of tbe Padaptha, theNighau,and otherallied worka, inclnding powibly theprototypea of our modern PrSti3kbyaa.

2 Thpa, for Cautai Frequentativ. Deaiderative

Attribute

Ysaka uaea anfttf

wbile Pffini usea ftrcmr W tm

a in a

f t ftarai

Weak termtaation ft|f%wi*t , . Deaomlaative . ' No. 0* **""exi,ta termination *nW W r for theae. 8imilarly Ysaka definea ( raoften uaed by him otbeririae ther derivea) f a n aa tban aa a teobnioal term of tmrfit 1 i l j nrftt grammar. Compare vi. 6. 8, at t I It > a vi. ! 2, vii. 1. 5, &c. Again,

[- 6

Vdska's Nirukta ; Its Bote

and urording of the rules Of grammar that are to be met vrith in the Ashtdhyy. We have dealt with the question of Pinis date in auother part of this essay, and if that reult be accepted, Yska must be placed about 800 to 700 before Christ. There are, however, a few facts which seem to mili* tate against the view that Yska flourished before Pini. The Stras of Pini nowhere make any provision for the formation of words like aratrt, which occurs in Nirukta (Bib. Ind.edition, Vol. iv. page 258 &c.). Nor did Pini appar* ently know Yskas explanation of ( Rigveda x. 85.20) by tphv Vfsft. Pini must, therefore, have preceded Yska; else how can we account for such omissious in a grammarian of the calibre of Pini ? The utter uselessness of these and similar negative arguments can be seen on a closer examination of the instances adduced. To obviate the last of these defects Ktyyana1 gives (j/ftetuoi UTUVpsv: as a vrtika to stra iv.r. 48. Ktyyna must, therefore, have come after Yska whose work he here presumably utilises. On the contrary, the first omission is not rectified even by Ktyyana who gives two vrtikas (no. 7 and 8 to vi. 1.89) to explain forms like UTf and ecuudj but not emsh This would necessitate the supposition that Yska came after Ktyyana. A mode of argumentation which leads to such contradictory couclusions is no safe foundation for
there ia a great distance bet- 1 In Kielhorne edition vol. ii. p. ween Ysakae definition of 220, thie is given not as a ftvnrs as fihnrfSfr vffrtika of Kntyffyana but as and his giving the mesnings a part of the MabSbbSsbya. for each individually,* and In that case Yffska's eiplanaPinis claaeification of them tion of auvrpft as srnrV into <mn4 when joined to tisft and his non-acquaintanoe verbe, ifh if the root develope with vSrtika 1 to Sntra iv. 1. into a nonn, and 49 may be addnced to prove Many mora similar illustrathe point at issue. tions could be fonnd. *

fc

ystents o f anskrit Grammr

6- ]

tm j chronological edifice, especially when the evidence for Yska's priority to Pini is so overwhelming.
9. Nature of YMcus urork. In form Yskas work is a running comlentrary upon a list of words in five adhyyas, known as the Nighatu. The words are ali taken from the Veda; the first three adhyyas arrange them as syn<5nyms, the fdurth is a collection o certain difficult W6rds OdCurrifig in the Veda, while the last is a list of the nSilres of Vedic deities. Yska takes these words one by one (in the case of the first three adhyyas only the more important ones), quotes Vedic passages wherein they are used, and tries to connect them, with radical stems and launches into various interesting ocial and historical discussions in his attempts to trace the later history of these words, always giving references to any conflicting views th at may have been held on the subject. Certairr general reflectfons as to the nature and utility of the study of the Vedas, the cosmological functions of the Vedic Gods, and so forth also find their proper place in the work.

That grammatical speculations had sufficiently advanced in the days of Yska is evidenced even by the list of schools and individual teachers quoted or referred to in the Nirukta,1 none of whose works have been preserved to us. Yska already knew, what it required an Aristotle to discover subsequently, viz : the fourfold classification of words, as also the distinction between personai terrainations and tense affixes on the one hand, and the primary and secondary nominal affixes on the other. Nay, he definitely formulates the theory that every noun is deriv1 These are: aunmr:, amrnr:, ttw ,, unmm:, lifti:, s^ofeTv:, tm:, Tforrercr:, rr$irft, ugt,vr ftprr:, TnmkOr:, mnrnDr:, rruryftr:, tvhCTAft:,srft-

[ | 8

Vaska's Successors

ed from a verbal root and meets the various objections raised against it,- a theory on which the whole system of PSini is based, and whih is, in fact, the postulate o f ! modern Philoiogy.1 8. YSskas succeor.Many valuable works on gram mar subsequent to Y3 skas Nirukta but anterior to PSinis Ashtdhyy have been irrevocably lost to us ; for, it cannot be maintained with cogency that the extremely artificial and algebraic style of the Ashtdhyyi could have been completely evolved by PSini himself in the absence of similar tentative works preceding his. We have got for this the evidence of PSinis own sntras, which use many technical words and formulas without having previously explained them9an omission which, as indicated by PSini at i.2.53-57, is to be accounted for on the supposition that they were too well-known or already sufficiently dealt with in other works to need any ezposition at his hands. Some of these works must certainly have been in existence long after the time of the MahbhSshya, since we find many quotations from them in later writers. The chief founders of grammatical schools prior to PSini are, Apiali and Kakntsna (compare PSini vi. 1. 92 ). A rule of piali3 is given by the KSikS on vii. 3. 95,
1 Compare Maz Miillers History of Anoient Sk. Literatra, pp. 161-168. 2 Such as renr, JT O H T , fffhrrt ffhrr, ^ngpff, 3Infhrnr &c., occurring respectively in i. 1. 69, ii. 3. 46, ii. 3. 2, ii. 3. 18, ii. 3. 13, ii. 3. 28, ii. 3. 50, ii. 3. 36, ii. 1. 3, ii. i. 22, ii. i . 5, 3 ii. 2. 23, iii. 1. 93, iv. 1, 76,
a [S k .G r .]

and elsewhere. These conld not ali have been taken from the Prtidkhya worka anterior to Yska, since some of them appear to be unknown to that author and must have come into vogue since his day .Compare also Pini ! 3.120, affrf srrsftnnu 1 where Bha^oji says, anffefir gm T T svar^ i m H rum q

to

Sjtstems o f Sanskrit Grammar

8 - ]

wbile elsetrhere it gives us the information that the grammar of Kakritsna consisted of sntras throvrn into three Adhyyas.' Kaiyyata on v. i. 21 actually gives portions of the text of both these grammarians8 -and this is about ali the information that we possess regarding these two ancient grammarians. To later writers like Bopadeva3 :they are probably little more than mere names. 9. The M-celled Aindra treatlaes. The case stands a little difforent with Indra or Indragomin. Pini nowhere mentions this name except under the general appelation of ' the easterners An oft-quoted passage from the fourth taraga of the Kathsaritsgara informs us that the school which Pini supplanted was known as the Aindra school, and numbered among its adherents Ktyyana alias Vararuchi, Vydi, and Indradatta. Hiuen Tsang the Chinese pilgrim, and Trntha the Tibetian historian, both relate a similar story, the latter adding that the Chndra vykaraa agrees with Pini, and the Klpa vykaraa vith the Aindra. Trntha also States that God Krttikeya revealed the Aindra vykaraa to Sapta(not Sarva-)varman (compare section 64, below). Further corroborative evidence is furnished by a passage4 froai the Taittiriya-samhit (viu-Jr-.), which speaks of Indra as the first of grammariajik-3 Ifo ali this Dr. Burnell
1 Compare the KStiika on v. 1. 58, tho subject of l and iv. 2.65 : far 2 *flram envtf t s rn i Another bit i of Information about sirpt- 3 Compare, g a a ^ i orrtl^HHlfteri, whlch I owe to Profes vrft srraram : i aor Pathak, ia that he ohanged qj Nfrom tbe root am; to be to ar. ComBepadevaa Mugdhabodha. pare m m m flhrit. the 4 vrg i t%arr MahsbhEabja n i. 3. 22. y*p iW ii% ai 4 ta ud w iif (tfii Jinendrabuddhi and............................. .......... i nff)ril msviftsmrv (1 .4 .3 8 ) aupply aarffiiTg: aa vraitht t <

[ - 9

The so-calkd A in ra treatises

further adds that the Tolkappiyara, one of the oldest Tarail grammars, represents itself to be full of the Aindra system, and was read in the Pdy Kings dssembly and there met with approval. This Tolkappiyam is closely related to Ktantra, to Kachchyanas Pli grammar, and to the Prtikhyas, ali of which are to be regarded as treatises belonging to the Aindra school of grammarians. The conclusion1 which D r.Burnell reaches is that the Aindra was the oldest school of Sanskrit grammar, and that Aindra treatises were actually known to and quoted by PSini and others, and that Aindra treatises stili exist in the Prtikhyas, in the Ktantra, and in similar works, though they have been partly recast or corrected. And again, the Aindra treatises belong to a system older than Pini's, though there is perhaps reason to believe that not one of them is, as a whole, older than the grammar of the last. That the technical terms used by the so-called Aindra treatises are connected with one another and are, further, simpler and more primitive than those of Pini isluite evident; and on this ground it is not unlikely that they represent a school of grammarians prior to Pinis. But since, besides the Aindra, we have at least two other schools also older than Pini, it will not do to put down every one o these sajfis as belonging to the Aindra school, seeing that we have no information regarding the sajs of the other two. In the present state of our knowledge, the fact that the Aindra school is nowhere quoted by name either in Pini or Mahbhshya or Kik should point to the conclusionalso endorsed by Keilhornthat the Aindra school is postPfiinya in date, though pre-Pinya in substance. Po3sibly it may be no other than the Ktantra school
1 Compare bis Eauy on the Aindra eohool oipunmMiuM jw*eim.

12

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

9-1

which belongs to the early centuries of the Christian era. Any further, details regarding the grammatical efforts earlier than PSini it is not possible to give. Ali that we can do is, ollowing Yska and on the basis of references occurring in Pini, Ktyyana, Patajali, and the earlier Prtikhyas and Brhmaas, to frarae a tabular statement of the schools and teachers with the tenets peculiar to each. A beginning towards one is made in Dr. BurneH's essay quoted before, where only the names of the teachers some of them later than Piniare given.1

The School of Panlni

10. The School of PSini. The work which brought to a focus these tentative efforts of the early grammarians8 and by its accuracy and thoroughness eclipsed ali its predecessors, dominating the thoughts of generations of thinkers even to present times, is the Ashtdhyyi of Pini. It standsand it will always stand as long as Sanskrit continues to be studiedas a monument at once of encyclopedic research and technical perfection. The work is also interesting in that it is probably the oldest surviv1 A few instances are also collected in Indische Studien, iv. p. 76. Compare also History of Ancient Sanskrit Litera* tnre* p. 160. 2 In his stras Pini refera to the Northern and the Eastern schools of grammarians and to the following ten individual authorsi srflrTt^, rrurnr, S n iN D i VlCfVi IniVi and S n m - It wonld not be far from the trath to aaaume th a t in one way or another Pinis work was an improvement upon those of hiB predeeessors. Some of them may bave oon* fined their attention merely to the Vedic and some to the post* Vedic Literatra, or, treating of both, must have given less attention to cnrrent speech and more to tbe scriptures. The VeBga spoken of by r u k a must be suoh a treatise and not the Aahcdhylyl.

[ - ii

P Sint: Hi& Date

i% ,

ing specimen o that type of literary activity, which found expression in the aphoristic style.' 11. PiinP* date The question about the age of this greatest of grammarians is by no means yet settled, or even on the way of being settled. The late Dr. Peterson was inclined to identify him with his namesake, Pini the poet, quoted in Vallabhadevas Subhshitvali and elsewhere, and to place him 'a t a date much later than that ordinarily accepted, that is, about the beginning of the Christian era.9 The identification of Pini the grammarian with Pini the poet was also accepted by Pischel, who however assigned to him the date cir. 500 before Christ. The question * how far Pini will eventually have to be brought down from the date now accepted for him, or how far it may be, on the contrary, advisable to push into remoter antiquity the lyrical poetry of Northern India' is finally left undetermined by Dr. Peterson.* According to this view it would appear that the two well-known references to the khyyik called Vsavadatt occurring in the Mahbhshya (vol. ii, p. 284) are to be taken as chronologically in touch with the celebrated romance of Subandhu, a writer of the seventh century. This will leave not even a century between Patajali and Bharthari the author of the Vkyapadya. How in that case we are to account for the vicissitudes in the text of the Mahbhshya as recorded in the latter work and in the Rjataragi8 one is at a loss to say. Since the recent discovery of Bhsas Svapna-Vsavadattam, which probably was based upon an earlier epic or khynaka,
1 That the 8tra-form was not new 3 Introduetion to the Subhffebitffin Paninis days is evident vali, p. 58. from the sfitra v. 1.58 : 4 Towarde the end of KSa ii. ITT i 5 Compare 1.176 ; See also Indian 2 See his Beport on the searoh of Antiquary, vol. iv. p. 107. Sk* Mse* for 1882-SB! pp. 39ff.

14

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

11 - ]

we are no longe required to connect Patafijali with Subandhu. Weber and after him Max Miiller put Pini down to about 350 B. C., thereby raaking Pini almost the contemporary o Ktyyana the author of the vrtikas to Pinis stras; 1 and this opinion obtained for a time, until it was assailed by Drs. Goldstucker and Bhandarkar who have succeeded in proving that Pini cannot have ourished later than B. C. 500. Goldstiicker went much fa rth e r: he maintained that within the whole range of Sanskrit literature, so far as it is known to us, only the Samhits of the ik , Sma, and Krishna-Yajus, and among individual authors only the exegete Yska preceded Pini, and that the whole bulk of the remaining known literature is posterior to him.'2 This position in an exaggerated form has been stated at length by Pandit Satyavrata Smaram, in the introduction to his Nirukta, making Yska also a successor of Pini. The date he assigns to Pini is cir. 2400 before Christ. Conclusions of this kind it was once the fashion to brush aside as carrying the starting point of Vedic chronology much farther than there was any warrant- for it. Since, however, recent researches into the antiquity of
l Histoy of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, as quoted by Goldstucker in his note 91, p. 80 (Beprint, p. 60) of Pini, His place &c2 Goldstijcksr, loc- cit., p. 243 (Beprint, p. 187). This view of Goldetlieker, however, is not strictly sccurete. Pini mnet have known sonte form of the Gnbya and the Dharma stras. In bis SStra in. 4.71 Pini mentione prohibited pl&oee or times for stndy: P&tajali in the Mahfibhshya (voi. ii, p. 386) ezplains what probibited places (fsrror)or times ( am n n m o T ) re meant. These prohibitiona are embodied in works of the Grihya or Dharma sStra type, and Pini mnst be thinking of some suoh works eziating in hie daye. 1 owe this note te Profeseor Pathak.

[ - 12 .

Pftini: H is Daie

IJ

the Vedas have done much to throw a doubt over the -I starting point for Ancient Indian Literature accepted by Professor Max Mtiller aud othet writers, the hest thing, in the absence of any positive evidence, is a suspension of judgment. In another place (pp. 6-7) are have given reasonsfor agreeing with Goldstiicker in aocepting the priority of YSska over Pini. Perhaps 700 to 600 B. C. would be as near an approximation to Pinis tirae as, in our presnt state of knowledge, Or rather want of knowledge, we are likely to get.
12. The vlew that Pialai cannot be placed before B. C. 350 encamlned.The fact that Pini in iv. 1.49

mentions Yavanas (and the female formation Yavann from the stem) has led most western scholars to put down Pini to a date not earlier than B. C. 350. The underlying assumptions a re : i. that <Yavanas candesignatenonebutthe IonianGreeks, and ii. that India did not have her knowledge of <Yavanas prior to Alexanders invasion, B. C. 327. Now regarding point i. the late Dr. Rjendrall Mitra in his IndoAryans gave ample evidence to prove that for no period of Indian history could we be quite certain that the word Yavana necessarily designated the Ionian Greeks. But even if we agree to wave this consideration for the pre sent, point ii. is by no raeans a settled fact. The 'v sound in the word Yavana represents an original digarama (T) in Greek ; and as the digamma was lost as early as B. C. 800, the Sanskrit word Yavana raust be at least as old as the ninth century before Christ. The Ionians appe&r in history long before B. C. 1,000 and it is not at ali iraprobable that the Indians knew them, as well as their neighbouring races,such as Assyrians ( ) Skythians ( rv-PRsmfhr), Medes ), Persians (smvfiv), Parthians (Vfpr), etc.perhaps centuries before Alexanders invasion. At any rate i Indian troops are

t6

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

12 - j

known to have formed part of the army of Danus in the battle of Plataeae (B. C. 479), Indias knowledge of the Greeks can go back to the middle of the fifth century before Chris The fact isand scholars are just begining to recognise itthat we have been too hasty in con demning the Pauranic accounts of the frontier tribes and races (e. g. those in the Vishupura or in the MahbhSrata, Bhshmaparvan, Chap. xi) as purely imaginative fabrications. We have so far altogether ignored the eictensive commerce and interchange of ideas that went on between the Indian Aryans and their brethren beyond the frontiers as far as the Mediterraneanand this long before B. C. 400. So much so that when other independent proofs vouch for the antiquity of an author (in the case of Pini we shall discuss these proofs presently) the burden of proof rests witb the person who maintains that some specific reference in that author belongs to a later and not to an earlier time, when, so far as facts go, the reference might just as well be to an earlier period. Nay, more. In this particular case Pinis reference must certainly belong to the earlier period. Compared with Ktyyanas knowledge about the Yavanas that of Pini is very slight. Pini did not know that the Yavanas had a script of their own ( comp. Katyyanas vrtika 3 to iv. 1.49), or at least in his time there was no current Sanskrit word for that script. Nor was the fact that the Yavanas had a native-place and a kingdom of their own sufficiently known to Sanskrit literature, as is evidenced by Ktyyanas vrtika gnrent * ItdMd'(jjrn<ran toiv. 1.175supposing of course that a n d u ro form a genuine part of the *w?UfiGnui. Such slight acquaintance with the Yavanas, therefore, as Pini betrays caltoot have belonged to a time subsequent to Alexanders invasion.

1 2

P in i: H is Date

But there is also independent evidence to prove tbat PSini lived before Alexander's invasion. The internai evidence which compels us to prf 9uppose at least a couple of hundred years between Fatajaf and Ktyyana, and KtySyana and Pinin evidence which even Vincent Smith finds himself compelled to accept(Early Hist. 3d. ed., p. 451, note 4)has been indicated in note 1, page 28 below. The most important of external evidence that has been lately brought forward (by Mr. Vishyanth Kshinth Rjavde in the Kesar for 30th August 1910) is Pini's mention of the town Sangala (Gr. Sngala, Sk. Skala) in the stra *T|;<!4lfawTW (iv. 2. 75). Pini derives the name of the town from the proper name Sakala. Skala is a city completed by (Prince?) Sakala. This city Alexander razed to the ground as a punishment for the stout resistance of its defenders (Vincent Smith, loc. cit., page 75), and Pini could not have thereafter spoken of it in the manner in which he does. Pini, therefore, must have lived before Alexanders invasion. Another independent evidence is furnished by the stra vvHorsfl (v. 3.117). Here the Parsus or the Persians (and the Asuras or the Assyrians) are mentioned as an or an organization of mercenary fighters, similar to the Greeks of the fourth century B.C., or the Germans of the seventeenth century. The Persians were blotted out as a political power in B. C. 329, and the Assyrians in B. C. 538. Pini's references to these people belong, therefore, probably to a time anterior to these dats. Lastly, reverting once more to Ktyyanas vrtika to iv. 1.175, if the word forms a genuine part of the it will be necessary to suppose trt Pini did not know that the Sakas or Skythians had a contry or a kingdom of their own. Now the first King of the 3 [ Sk. Gt. J

iS

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

ie - ]

Skythians was Deioces whose date is cir. 70 9 B.G., and Pini must have lived before B. C. 700 or at least not long after that date. It is of course conceded that none of these arguments are decisive taken singly. Alternative suppositions could be made to explain away some of these facts. Thus Pini may conceivably mention the city of Sangala even after its destruction by Alexander. The Persians and the Assyrians might have turned into mercenary soldiers after the loss of their iudependence. And in the case of the 3H^Y3TT|5?i stra, since Patajali in his gloss on Kty5yanas vrtika does not mention the akas or the Yavanas, the two words may not possibly form a geuuine part of Ktyyanas addition, and cosequently no cogent argurnent could be based on that circumstance,waving the alternative possibility of Pini havin at times made mistakes. Finli y, it is ot altogether impossible that the stras on which our arguments for Pinis,|,ntiquity are based, were taken over by Pini bodily from some of his predecessors, just as, contrariwise, the stras from which his modernity is inferred (especially the word tran in stra iv. i . 49) were later interpolations. But in that way anything is possible and we would be reduced to speechlessness. The upshot of ali this is that there is nothing in Pinis Ashtdhyy that is inconsistent with his having flourished in the seventh century.B. C.. and this negative conclusion is ali that I am content to reach for the present, leaving the burden of proof with those who wish to maintain the contrary. 13. Known facts about PSinis IM e. As differing from himself Pini mentions (v. 3 . 80, vi. 2. 74 , etc.) a school of Eastern grammarians, and in later literature be is also known by the name lturlj^a1 which is probably derived
l &c, from r a r m r n r t f t 2.

[ | 14

Knotm Pacts about Pini's Life

19

from his native place. Cunningham hasidentified ltura with the present Lahaur in the Yusufzai valley. In the days of Hiuen Tsang the valley was known as Udyna and ltura was a prosperous town. To-day it is an obscure deserted village in the Nortb-westein Frontier Pro vince, near Attock. In his Mahbhshya Patajali gives ,another bit of biographical informaticn about Pini whom he calles Dksh then was Pinis mother. The KathsaritsSgara (taraga 4) makes Pini a contemporary of Ktyyana and Vydi and Indradatta, along with whom he studied at the house of T'TTW DT Not succeeding in his studies Pini practised penance and received from God iva the fourteen p ra tli h ra stras. The story about his death from a tiger* as recorded in Pachatantra, if based on fact, may or may not refer to our Pini. And this is about ali that we know of Pini's personality.
H. characU r of Pllnls work Pinis work consists of nearly fdur thousand stras thrown into eight adhyyas of four pdas each : hence its name Ashtdhyy. The text of the stras has come down to us almost intact. A doubt exists as to the genuineness of only five^ of these stras, and that is hause they are given in the Mahbhshya as vrtikas to the stras just preceding them. When we say that the text has been preserved intact, it is not meant that it is exactly as we find it in any of our current editions. The late Dr. Kielhorn drew attention4 to the
1 2 frsftVTV Tfa*: I tendency to regnrd as tra Kielhorna ed. vol. i. p. 75. what is given as vrtika, and fl^f *rren?i; viee vrsa, has created floine fifrrntrrfurvrt i Tantra ii, stanza confusion in the exact ennmara33, tion of the afitras. The whqle Namely, two between iv. 3,131 matter needs to be critically and 132 and v. t .36, vi. 1.62, atudied. Compare Gcldstflcker and vi. 1.100,the last tbree page 29 (Reprint, p. 21), note being given in the Mahubbff28. shya ae vffrtikas to the stras 4 Indian Anliquary, volnmr xvi, immediately preoedig. The page 179,

so

Systems 0 / Sanskrit Grammar

14 - ]

fact that the text of the stras has not received from the editors ali the care that is necessary. Ali that we maan is that with sufficient pains we can restore from the vrtikas and the Mabbhshya the exact words as they were used by Pini himself. Changes have been suggested in raore than one place by more than one writer, but they were not actually made until after the times of Chandragomin, the Kikkras, and subsequent writers. Pini has discussed his entire subject in a manner which is very simple in outline, could we but once grasp it, but which has proved very complex in execution. We may conceive of it in some such way as the following. Analysing languageand this is what vykaraa literally meansthe first element we reach is a sentence, which again consists of a verb in the various tenses and moods, and a number of substantives in case-relations to each other. [The indeclinables we do not count for the p re sen t; they are put in towards the end of 1 .4 .] Now the formsof verbs that we meet in sentences seem to be made up of an original root-stem and a number of gratyayas or endings, and it is these endings that give the verbs their several raodal and temporal significances. These endings, we further notice, group themselves into two sets, and some roots take invariably only one of them, others both, while a number of others change from one to the other under certain circumstances. At the outset then, and to get rid of extra compfexity, we dispose of these so-called Atmane-pada and Parasmai-pada prakrivs ( * 3 ) Turningparl passu to the other element of the sen tence, having defined a case-relation (i. 4), we notice that there are often in a sentence sustantives without any case termination at ali, We explain these as the members of a whole vhich we technically call a samSsa or a compound. The formation and the vrieties of these must

[ f 14

Programm of the Askt3dhy3y

it

first be explained (ii. 1 and 2), before we actually treat of the kSrakas or ease-relations (ii. 3). Taking up the verbs vrhere *we left them, we next, after a few preliminary definitions and other cognate matters (ii. 4 end), deal at length with the formation and the uses of the various tenses and moods; and, while we are stili on the subject, we explain what areusually knovrn as verbal derivatives, that is to say, those elements of sen tences vrhich, although by reason of their case-endings they may seem to belong to the category ofsubstajjtives, do yet bear a very close affinity in meaning and formation to the root stems from vrhich they are derived (iii. 1-4). Now vre are free to concentraie ourselves on the nounelement of the sentence. The Nairuktas or tymologists seem to assert that ali these nouns are derived from the root-stems, vrhich vrere the ultimate factors that we reached in our examination of the verb-element of the sentence. Let us exaraine this theory. * To simplify matters we must, in the first place, dispose of a large number of nouns which are derived from other nouns by the addition of the so-called taddhita affixes (iv.1.76v.4). Then it is that we reach the substantive divested of ali external vrrappings. But may not there be some changes in the very body of the nouns vrhich we can explain ? It is only vrhen vre have done that (vi.4vii.4) that vre are at liberty to style the residual as RPTOtf*! unless, of course, we intend to step outside the r 61e of a mere grammarian, as distinguished from a philologist, and try to trace even these back to some raore primitive verb-stems. Pini has made his contribution to philology in the form of the Udisbtras (see belovr, 16). This gives us the complete programm of the Ashtdhyyl, and if Pini seems to depart from this in places

ti

/stems o f Sanskrit Grammar

$ 14 - ]

it is more for convenience of treatment than for anything lse. He begins, as was quit appropriate, with a few definitions and caons of interpretation (i. 1 and 2), and he always takes care to introduce such definitions whereever they are required. Some minor topics usually found included in systematic treatises on grammar, such as the Svara-prakarana (vi. 2) or the Str-pratyayas, Pini has attempted to put into the places wiere they would raost fit in, the only prominent exceptioh to the above rule being the Sandhi-prakaraa, which may conceivably have as well been placed elsewhere than where it occurs (vi, 1 and viii. 2- 4), and which in any case need not have been cut into two halves separated from one another by the whole matter of nearly two chapters. , His system of pratyhras and his anxiety to secure a maximum of brevity are perhaps responsible fbr this lapse in regular logical sequence. But barring these paltry exceptions there is no doubt that Pini has succeeded remarkably well in welding the whoIe incongruous mass of grammatical matter into a regular and a consistent whole. 15. Technlcal devlces used by PSlnl. The difficulty in understanding Pini comes from the very circumstance which Pini himself perhaps considered as his real advance over ali his predecessors, namely his attempt to economise expression where conceivably he could do so
1 1 do not wish to conceal the fact that the above topical acheme for the whole of the AsMdhyy will be found wanting, if tried in details. It would eeem as if Pini wae working alternately upon tbe two main aspects of his problem. tbe nouna and tbe verbs ; and the present arrangement of tbe stras in the ABh5dhyyI is tbe reM ilt of attempting to dovetau the two into a coherent whole, involving in the process rnany an addition and omission and transposition. I | may even he that some sections of the sutras are post-Pina interpolations, just as, on* trariwise, other sections ofthe stras Pini raay bave bodiiy taken over from spm earlier

 - 15

Technkal Devices used by Paini

without being raisunderstood. Why Pini should have elected to strain ali his nerves to bring about a result which a student -of grammar is often likely to regard AS the curse o his lot is raore than vrhat \ve c&n say. His object may have been to give his students aids to memory, or the stra-style may have arise/, as suggested by Goldstucker, in the scarcity of the raaterial for writing. In any case we have reasons to assurne that the stras from the earliest times were accompanied by a traditional explanation of them. Let us for a raoment dwell a little longer on this point and note the various means whereby Pini attempto secure terseness and brevity of expression. The most amongst the devices used was of course that o the pratyhras or elliptical statements, and o the anubandhas or signifirat edigs. The first was effiected by means of the fourteen iva-stras, which, according to tradition, were revealed to him by God Siva himself by sounding his tabor. As to the second, although the anubandhas used by Pini are peculiar to himself, the device does not appear to have been his invention. The practice already existed, and Pini only utilised it to its utraost limits.,

The formation of gaas, by which are meant lists of words which undergo similar grammatical changes, also THed toevards the same result. Some of these gaas are complete and some iti-gaas, that is to say, gaas which do not exhaustively enumerate ali the words of a
graminars. But for the intrinhave it now,herewould be a ie difficulty of tbe task and splendid problem in teitaal for the fact tbat we have no criticism. estant authority earlier than 1 Compare Mahsbhahya on vii. 1. theMfthSbhfebya, whichknows 18 * 3Wf I the AhtSdhyS:yI in practically W the same form in which we trffa

Sy$tem s o / S a n s k r it G ram m ar

l - ]

class, but rather give merely a few leading types. Pini in his stras gives only the first word o a gaa and they have hence been considerably tampered with since his times. So, although vre cannot be certain whether any one vrord now found in the Gaaptha existed in Pini's day, stili the bulk of our present Gaaptha may safely be considered as coming from the hands of the grammarian himself. The next device to secure brevity was the invention of peculiar technical symbols such as r, P? sg, &c. Some of these raay have been known to Pini from his predecessors, while others were probably of his ovru creation. Patafijali distinctly tells us that 1% , 5 and H were knovrn to him already. In the framing of the stras Pini always scrupulously omitted ali such words as may be conveniently supplied from sense or from preceding stras. The technical name for this process is anuvritti, and to secure it he has made some of his stras adhikra-stras,3 that is to say, stras which have to be repeated, wholly or in part, each time any of the stras dominated by it are to be interpreted. Lastly, in portions of the Ashtadhyyi he has so arranged the stras that vrhere two stras appear equally applicable, that vrhich comes earlier in the order of the Ashtdhyyi must obtain precedence over the one vrhich comes later.3 fit
1 MahSbhshyu on i. 2. 53, and e, g* i. 2.48, where Kaiyyaf;a in the same place. has i t , 3. giving a numerical 2 Pini sbows that a particular value to some mute letter addsUtra is an adhikra stra by ed to the sfitra , c. p. r (2) i. the word snr followed by a is supposed to be added to word in the ahlative case v. 1.30 to sbow the extent of occurng in a subsequent atra the adhiksra ; and 4. to which the adhikr* is to I continue ; as in i. 4. 56; 2. 3 Pini viii. 2.1

* [ - 16

fre a tis e acces$ory to P in i

3$

There is yet one raore device serving the stme end which remains to be mentioned and of which so much was made in later grammatical speculations: namely, the use of the paribhshs or canons of interpretation. Some of them are enunciated by Pini himself,but a larger num ber he found already current in his day, and so used them tacitly, and the task reserved for later grammarians was to discover what facts in Pinis stras imply the use of what particular paribhshs.1 |6< Troattees accessory to PSlnl's Ashldhyiy. In addition to the Ashtdhyyl, Pini put together a Dhtuptha or listof roots, a Gaaptha or list of words which behave alike grammatically, and Udi-stras in some form or other. Regarding the first, Pini mentions in the stras themselves ali the ten classes and even some of their sub-divisions just as they occur in the Dhtuptha.2 The anubandhas of the Dhtuptha, further, have the same significance3 as those of the Ashtdhyy. These facts tend to establish Pini's authorship of the Dhtuptha. We have already spoken (p. 23 above) about the Gaa ptha, which also in the main belongs to Pini. The question as to the authorship of the Udi-stras cannot be so easily settled. They are commonly supposed to be the work of Skatyana on the basis of statements found in the Nirukta1 and the Mahbhshya/ according to which Skatyana agreed with the in deriving * "
For the distinction between the vii, l. 59 ; vir. 2. 45 \ &c. and tbe 3 Wegtergaards Kadices Linguee and the whole question of Sanscrit, pp. 342, 343. Pinis use of paribhshs 4 Nirukta i. 4. 1 s see Uoldstcker, pp. 106-118 grnftffr trr a rn f t ' (Reprint, pp. 81-90). 6 Kielbom, vol. ii. p. 131 *amr 2 Compare i. 3.1 ; ii. 4. 72 and urggun* MWM) SUBgVT 76 j iii. 1. 25, 66, 69, 73, 77, * irta* l # , 79,81; ui. 3.104; vi. 1.15 4 tS k .G r.] 1

26

lstetHs o f Sanskrit Gramttidr

i 16 - ]

ali nouns from roots. Since, however, no #ork of katyana has come down to us, and since the abdnusana vrhich novr passes under his name is a comparatively late production (see belovr, 52), vre cannot say vrhether this ancient Skatyana left behind him any vrork in justification of the vievrs which he doubtless held. On the other hand the Udi-stras exhibit unmistakable mrks of Pinis system. They use sajs such as =***, grarnr, wthh i , and ansmr in the same sense in vrhich Pini uses them. The anubajidhas of the Udis are also similar to Pinis. This raises a strong presumption that the Udi-stras are the work of Pini himself ; and it is further corroborated by the fact that K5tyyana in more than one place takes objection to the technical application of a rule in the Ashtdhyy urging that it does not hold good in the case of particular Udistrasan objection which could not have been urged unless Ktyyana regarded Pini to be the author of the U dis; for, Pini vras not to be expected to frame rules that vrould hold good in other people's vrorks.1 There is no reason why vre should not accept this conclusion. We cannot, however, assign ali the Udi-stras to Pinis authorship, seeing that in some places their teaching runs counter to the Ashtdhyy.2 The probable vievr, as suggested by Goldstricker,3 is that the Udi list vras first dravrn up by Pini, but that it vras aftervrards modified or corrected by Ktyyana. The extent of the changes introduced by the author of the Vrti kas must
1 Examples are vii. 3. 50, vii. i . 13, ed on the fact that viii. 2. 78, and viii. 3. 59. In tgvtviiO 1 most of these casea K&tyffyana 2 Thus, Uadi-satra iv. 226 goea has the remark Torrflrt vfiagainst Paini vi. 2.139. Wr*Vi or words to this 3 Psini, his place &c., pp. 170 effect. Patajalie defenoe of (Beprint, 130) a n d ^ l (BePBini is throughout groundprint, 139).

[ - 16

Treatises accessori to Pini

*7

have been so gfeat as to credit hinr, in popular tradition, with their sole authorship. _Thus Vimalasarasvati,1 a writer not later than the fourteeth century A. D., and Durgasimha* who belongs to the early centuries of the Christian era, both assign the authorship o the Udistras to Vararuchi alias K3 tyyana* The poet Mgha, however, seems to look upon the Udis as belonging to Pini,3 though his words are not aite explioit. The other works appended to Pinis system probably do not come from him. The Phit-stras are, by unanimous testimony, the work of ntanavchrya, a writer much later than Pini.4 The iksh bears on the face of it the stamp of modernness, notvvithstanding the factth at a verse from it has found its way into the.Mahbhshya; 5 and the same is true of the Lignusana. Regarding the Paribhshs, in addition to those given by Pini in his Ashtdhyy there raay have been others current in Pinis time and tacitly employed by him ; but no ancient collection of them has come^down to us. The Paribhshs are usually assigned to the authorship of Vydi who comes between Pini and Patajali.
1 In the 4kiwrrfi', the India Office 4 Compare vpfr|$hur on Mg. of wkioh is dated 1381 ii. 21, where he remarka A. D., we find : TonffegtffopmSt 3TPJ-

tornr
goTVar f% l t n r v r l f i r n f i f &C.

nrer vhnm i
5
M ab5 b h E sh y a ,

2 He begins hia com. on the i eotion of the Kstantra with the verse : 9 8 t: fftvn ar sti *8 i i i u m f r r i v r The kts in this school also inolnde the USdis, as will be seen later.

vol. i . p . S j B t rp &o. * frqrr, stanza 52 jvsrt &c. This stanza, however, forms a genuine part of the Mahsbhxshya, seeing that it is commented upon by arj gf t in his Rf Kielhorn, vol. ii, preface, p. 18, and is quoted by

3 iupSlavadha xix. 75, and Maloommentary upon

in the Tantravgrtika, Benaret ed., p. 283*

the same.

98

System 0/ Sanskrit Grammar

i| - ]

Between PSini and the next great jUmmarian, K ityyana, came many authors, who a ttem pted, more or less successfully, to emend or justify Pini's rules, and some of the metrical vrtikas found in the Mahbhshya probably belong to these predecessors of Ktyyana. We must needs assume this, unless we are ready to suppose that the considerabie interval of time1 that exists between PSini and Ktyyana was altogether barren of grammatical speculations. Whoever these predecessors were, as our knowledge about their works is next to nothing, we must nowpass on to KStyyana himself.
17. K S ty 9 y an a: H is d a te .The KathsaritsSgara makes Ktyyana the conteinporary of Pini, or more accurately, the senior of the two ; and had not -this tradition been to this extent accepted by so great an authority as Max Mtlller, we might have explained this on the analogy of a row of columns seen in perspective, where the columns which are farthest from us look nearest to each other, for the simple reason that we cannot discern any mrks in the interspaces. We must be prepared however to give up this view and presuppose between Pini and Ktyvanathat much time which the nature of the changes in the forms of language above indicated will reasonably require; and unless we assume that language and customs were in an extraordinarily volatile condition in ancient times,

1 Goldstilcker proves this by sbow ing that 1. grammatical forms ourrent in Pini's time are obsolute in that of Ktyyana. 2. 8o also the: meanings of words. 8. Words aoqujUre in Kfftyyanas time significances which they had not in Pinis. 4.Literatureknown toKty* yana was unknown to Plini. 5* Writers contemporary with

or little separated in time from Pini are looked upon by Rtyyana as very ancient, e.g. Vjyavalkya ; on his last point the Kdik remarka : r wmf- For foller particulars see Goldstflcker on Pini. pp. 122*157 (Bei'., ^ print, pp. 94420)*

[ - 18

Ktydyana: Mis Work

about two to th ile eenturies would not by any me&na be too great an intfefval that we can suppose to have elapsed between them, n the present State of our knowledge we cannot therefore, unfortunately, arrive at a greater approximation than 500-350 B. C., nearer to the latter limit if the relation of Ktyyana with the Nandas raentioned in KathSsarits3gara has any basis in fact. 18 Netur# of KStyyao*B work.KtySyana's work, the virtikas, are meant to correct, modify, or supplement the rules of Pini wherever they were or had become partially or totally inapplicable. There are two works> of his which aim at this object. The earlier* is the Vjasaneyi Pritikhya, a work dealing with the grammar and orthography of the Vjasaneyi-Sarhhit. Being limited by the nature of his subject to Vedic forms of language only, Ktyyana has herein given his criticisms on such of the stras of Pnini as fell within his province. Taking up the suggestion which dawned upon him probably in the course of his Prtiikhya, Ktyyana next subjected Pinis Ashtdhyy to a searching criticism. Sinoe here his object was not to explain Pini but find faults in his grammar, he has left unnoticed many stras that to him appeared valid. Of the nearly 4,000 stras Ktyyana
1 Kstyyana is credited with the authorahip of a third work in efitra stjle, the Ktyyana rauta stras (published in the Chaukhamba Sanskrit series), bnt it has nothing to do witb grammar. It might have given Ktyyana practice in writing etrat, but that is ali. 2 That the Vljasaneyi-Prtit5khya is posterior to and based upon ^Pfini Is olear from the faot i, that manjr of the stras there given are indentic&l with those of Pini. ii. The pratyhrae and anubandhas are in most oasss those of Pini. iii. Where there are ohanges they are improvements upon Pini, snoh improvements as Ktyyana later emhodied ^rith occaeion&l ohanges for tbe better in his virtikas. See Goldstfioker, Pgini, pp. 199 (Reprint, pp, IftS) and the following.

Jo

Systems o f Sanskrit

Grammar

18 - ]

noticed over 1,500 in about 4,000 vrtikas. We must add to these the considerable number of cases where Ktyyana has critcised Pinis rules in his Prtikhya. Some o these criticisms he repeats as vrtikas, generally saying there what he had to say in a more correct form .1 Ktyyana has not merely stated his doubts and objections in regard to some o Pinis rules, but in most cases has shown how they can be solved or removed.2 At the same time he always takes care to prove his propositions, and when suggesting an alternative course, he always tells us that he does so. Notwithstanding this there are, according to Patajalis showing, a good many cases where his criticisms are misplaced, or are the result o misunderstanding Pini. Some of the vrtikas are written in prose, while others are thrown into a metrical form. In a vast number of cases Ktyyana has clearly indicated the rules of Pini to which his remarks refer by repeating the stras verbatim ,3 or with slight changes,4 or by taking its most important4 or introductory word. Cross references to his own vrtikas he gives by TtF stt, or $ n r.7 Ktyyana, in that he meant to write a criticism on Pini was compelled to adhere to the latters terminology. Notwithstanding this fact he has used for
1 For Pffinie Kfftysyana in the PrStiSkhya liaa

ar&r Bhr
j- i -*

i-m w r s nf^nmr<oitypn^s: 1-''4

4 5 6 7 Vnrtika 1 to stra iii. 1. 84 ; Vrtika 1 to sStra v. 2. 47 ; Vitrtika 1 to sfltra vi. 4. 14; Vffrtika 2 to atra iii. 4. 79 ; to give but one instance of each, .

2 Oaually by phraaes snob as i VI. Compare Indian Antiquary, volume v, Note 2 on the Mahsbhaekya, where Kieliprn dieouaaes the whole aubjeot.

8 Vlrtika 1 to Otra ii. 1. 83 ;

[ - 19

Mariier an LaUr VSrtikakiras

WSSf*r for > fntrrtV for am, nPft and m rpft for and g ^ . This iEact, together with the statement in the Kathsaritsgara1 to the effect that he gvas a follower of the Aindra school, raakes it probable that he belonged to a school, of grammar different from Pini's. Patafijali distinctly calls him a Southerner.2
19. VSrtlkakiras before and after Kityyana As observed before (p. 28), Ktyyana had several predecessors from whose works he may have taken many suggestions. In his Prtikhya he refers to katyana3 and kalya,4 names alreadyquoted by P in i; while in the vrtikas he refers by name to Vjapyyana,c Vydig and Paushkarasdi,7and designates a number of others under the general appelation of %T%?r, and so forth.8 Some of these latter must have been scholars who, like Ktyyana himself, subjected the wording of the stras of Pini to a critical examination. Vydi we know, was the author o an extensive work called Sagraha, referred to in the Mahbhshya which is in fact based upon it.

Ktyyana was ollowed in his task by a vast number of writers. The names of some of these are preserved for us by Patafijali.10 To that list we must add the author or authors of the metrical vrtikas(over 250) that are quoted in the Mahbshya. Some o these belong to Patafijali him self, others probably to Ktyyana, while stili others, to either the predecessors or successors of Ktyyana.1 That
1
2

3 4 5 6 7 8

Tataga iv. and elsewhere : fcr padlya describes the MabsnmB& t J|f* I bhffsbya as n y u g gfftsiaSiMahBbhBshya, vol. 1, p * 8, line 2: 10 Nmely, blDT, J f^ntftprr qrfimrfw p 1 mcmpr, a r f t, and iii. 8 1 5 1 %. iii. 9 : 3l f ^ n e rSFs l 11 The question as to the authorVar tika 35 to i. 2, 64. sbip of these iflmrfilm is Vartika 45 to i. 2. 64. discussed in the Indian AntiVBrtika 3 to viii. 4. 48. quary vol. v, Note 4,on ths VBrtika 4 to ii. 1. 1, &cMbBbhBsbya.

9 Vol. i. p. 6, line 2 }The Vakya.

$3

tstems o f m skrit Grammar

10-3

some of them at least presuppose Ktyyana is proved by kri k i on Pini iii. 2.118, which quotes one of his virtikas. Un,ortunately none of these successors of Ktyyana are known to us otherwise than through quotations made by Patafijali in his Mahbhshya. We must therefore next pass on to Patafijali, with whom ends the first period in the history of the Pinya school.
20. Patanjall: His date and personai hlstory. The date of

Patafijali the author of the Mahbhshya is not subject to as vague a guess-work as that of Ktyyana or Pini. At one time scholars were inclined to make him a contemporary of Christ, but Dr. Bhandarkar has fought through the pages of the Indian Antiquary for an earlier date ; and it has been now accepted by scholars ali round, and formed, in fact, until the recent discovery of the Kautilya, the one definite landmark in the history of ancient Indian Literature, by a reference to which the dats of Patafijalis predecessors and successors could be approximately determined. The main arguments for assigning him to 150 B. C. are these; i. The instance 17 uTrnnrr: in such a context that the event must have occurred w ithinthelifetim e of Patafijali. ii. Similarly the instances and srarsppnft which refer to a siege by Menander. iii. As a collateral evidence, the mention of a financial expedient of the Mauryas.' Regarding the personai history of Patafijali very little is known. He was a contemporary of Pushpamitra and probably much honoured by him for his learuing. It is usual to suppose that the epithets Gonardya and Goikputra used in the Mahbhshyas are his own other names
1 The refereaoas are : Indian AnGroldstiicker, pp. 228-38 (Retiqnary i. 299-302 j ii. 57, 69, print, pp. 175-183), 94, 2C6-10, 238, and 862 ; xv. 2 Vol. i. pp. 78, 91, 336, &c. 80-84 ; xvi. 156, 178 ; and

[ i so

Pataftjdii's MabbhUsh)w

83

derived from his native place andthe arae of his mother, kut it has been shown by Rfjendrall Mitra1 and Dr. Kielhornsthat they are distmct authors, and as such they are quoted by 30 early a vrriter as Vtsyyana the author of th e Kma-stra/' The best account of Patajalis time, if not of his person, is to be found in the Mahbhshya itself; and a detailed esposition of the religious, historical, geographical, social, and liter*ry data |s resulting from the contents of that work is to be found in the Indischo Studien, xiii. pp. 293-502. We have stated that Patajali was not the first to deal with Ktyyana in the same way in which the latter dealt \vith Pini. Patajali was perhaps the most successful if noj also the last of the number. Besides giving his ishtis* (desiderata) on Pinis stras, wherever Ktyyana had omitted io give vrtikas, his chief aim was to vindicate Pini against the often unmerited attacks of Ktyyana ; and in this he has achieved a remarkable success, although in some places he overdoes his defence and becomes decidedly unfair to Ktyyana. The style of his work is unparalleled in the whole range of Sans krit Literature, only the rra-bhshya of akara being worthy of a mention by its side. Regarding the text of the Mahbhshya the traditions recorded in the Rjataragi1 and in the Vkyapadya state that it had become so hopelessly corrupt inthe time of kig Abhimanyu of Kmr that only one authentic Ms. of it existed throughout India, from which ali subsequent copies of it have been derived. The work, like
1 Journal of the Asistie Sooiety of vided into four olagM, while Bengal, vol. Liii. "p. 289. ivides them into 2 Indian Amtiquary xiv, p . 40. eigbt. 3 See Ksma-afltra, p. 67 (Kffvya- 4 Vide note 5 on p. 13*bov-e. m tft editlon).Aocor81ng to 5 Effa ii,8tanaas 44-0. tfl rarcpr the di-

5 [Sk.G r.]

54

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

so - ]

Pinis Ashtdhyy, is divided into eight adhyyas of four pdas each, each pda being further subdivided into from one to nine hnikas. The Mahbhshya does not notice ali the stras of Pini, but only such as were noticed by Ktyyana, as also such others as Patafijali himself considered incomplete and capable of improvement. Whethcr the remaining \vere likewise commented upon by Patajali or not is more than vvliat we can say.
21. Patajalls Mahbhshya as merkl ng the end of the first

Ktyyana, and Patafijali are traditionally known as the three sages, muni-trayam, who gavo the la\v to the Science of grammar. Each took for his study the whole field of the living language, and the contribution made by each to the stock of inherited lcnoevledge and ideas is quite considerable. Patafijali's Malibhshya for a time marked the highest point in the development of the Science of grammar. So far as grammatical speculations go, the next three or four centurieswhich coincided with the bloom of the classical Prkrit litcrature and which also tvitnessed the Scythian invasions on a large scaleare a perfect blank to us ; and our next leap from Patafijali should be to Chandrago min, the founder of the Chndra school. was a close student of Pini, Ktyyana, and Patafijali, and for hisw orkhe utilized ali their labours, trying in several places, in the light of the changes that had come over
1 A faneiful explanation of Iho the Mah&bhSsbya were blown fact that some of Ptinis away by the wind and others stras are not to bo found in got disarranged. Another aothe MahSbbUshjra rs given in count makes a m o n k e y tbo Patajala*chBrita (Kvyaresponsible for mlEt, No. 51), whero it is said the accident* that some of the leaves of the 2 For a more detailed aceouni of originally oomplete ccpy of him see 42 and ollowings 22. Chandragomin and hts work. --Chandragomin 2

period la the h1story of the Plnya school Pini,

( - i 23

Okandrkgomin at\d his mork

*

35

Sanskrit since the days of the author of the Mahbhshya to improve upon them in tlie f oc ar as vvell as the matter of their stras and vrtikas and* ishtis. Chandragomiu was a Bauddha, and one of his objects in \vriting a new grammar must have been to supply, for the benefit of members of his Church, a gram m artha+ would be free from the traditional Brahmanical element. The more orthodox grammarians, hovvever, \vere not willing to accept his innovations. They accordingly tried to invent new maxims of interpretation, tending to shoev, aftcv a very diligent analysis of the works of the three great sages, that such defects as Chandrgomin and others tried to find in the Pinya grammar were in it already implicitly provided for. This procedure was no doubt unhistoiical, but so was that of Ktyyana or of PatafU jali. As yet we cannot fix upon any great leading names,1 but the traditional elaboration of the system of jpakas and Paribhshs must be referred to the time somewhere between 470 (the date of Chandragomin) and 650 (the date of one of the authors of the Kik). Itsing, the Chinese pilgrim, speaks of Jayditya of Kmr as the author o a grammatical work called vritti-stra, which it is usual to identiy with the Kik, a joint work of Jayditya and Vmana. Itsing tells us that Jayditya died about A. D. 660 ; and if the above identification is correct,2 this gives us the date of the Kik.
23. The Klk of Jaydltya and Vmna 1 Un less it be those of sfr, fhnr, and mentiond in the Vkyapalya, Ka secou, tanza 487. 2 Itsings accouot of tho by srinfipr moy not after ali refer to the He speaks of a com. on the by Patafijali and writes as if STVtffjir completed the hinisdf. Evcnso, hovvever, we ennnol bring fho Kik any earlier than 650 A. D., seuing that on iv. 3. 88 it mentions the Vffkyapadlya by nama. Jayditya then ppears.to be

3$

of emkrH Crammar

j 23 - $

. The KSeikS m s tbe believed to be th e w<wk a oae author vawoaeljf c&Ued VSauua, Jajrditya, or VSmanaJayditya. It has now been found out that th e f are two distinct persans. Bliat^oji Dkshita clearly disdnguisbfts between their views, and. the concurreni tesflouMiy. o Ms. from ali pasts of Indra assigns to Jayditya the authorship of the first five chapters of it, while the last three belong to Vmana, who probably came soon after Jay8itya and c'ertain!y before the time of Jinendrabuddhi, who comments upon the whole vvork.5 , Regarding the personality of the authors of the Kik little definite isknown. Neither of them begins his work with any magaa, both exhibit an unorthodox tendency to introduce changes into the vvording of the stras, and Jayditya at any rate refers on i. 1. 36, with evident satisfaction, to the work of the Lokyatikas.3 These reasons tend to show that the author or authors were Bauddhas. It is supposed that Jayditya is to be identified with king Jaypia of Kmr, whose minister, as mentioned by Kalhaa, was a person named Vmana.1 This may not be strictly accurate. Dr. Biihler believed that the author was a native of Kmr.
at leaat a conteinporary of Pfiiniv 4. 42; ^ 3Krf^Blmrtrihari the author of the I *D T H *W IV YkyapadTya. Vamana uho 2 0a the question of the diflercnt probab1y wrote the l&st three authorehip of the Ktllkff gee chapters of the Ksika came Dr. Bhandarkars Report for oon after Jaydttya, and 1883-84, p. 58. Jinendrabuddhi, tbe author of 3 ee Bla Suatii s edition of tbe the Nysa on the Kfttiiks came Kithk, p. 62 * probably before 750, eeeiog rwrwi^nfi*rwfsr m that he ia quoted by so early taivk n?t rub i an author a s Bhlmaha. Com pare alao J. B. B. R. A S. for nmnlt i sfvsfai mammt 1909, p. 94; Indian Antiqnary, 'fim m i i i h i , pp. 232-237 a n d x L i i , pp. 4 Dr. Biihler* Bpmt far 1875-70, 253-264. p.78. I Compare tlt* on

( > 4 *4

fo&fcT o f f i & d i t p and* $ m m a

< fv

fh e Kak i a rtnmng corantords^jr jtB NSjins Afcfcidhysii, aad k a mett consists i the ludd raaminr in \vhich it has expfained tho *stras of PSiui, clBrly mdicafaag aU tfca anuVitiis and iving nunrercnia* klsts*tions for each rula. Sometimes the Kik g ivm m information -vrhich wa could not pqssibly h fie obtaiaed from any other source. Thus an Sfitra vii,3,9 5 it gifes us a rule of Apialip the graun|riaq who preoeded Pini and whose work must co8equlntly have been known to the authors of the Kik. On stra vii. a. 17 it gives us a vrtika of the Saungas other tban those quoted in the Mahbhlshya. These facts, horvever scanty by themselves, corroborate the tradition of the existence of a vast number of grammarians prior and subsequent to the time of Ktyyana.
24. The Indsbtednesa of the Kik to Chandragomin. Tho

object of the Kik was to embody in the Pinya system ali the improvements that were made by Chandragomin. As the result of an exhaustive analysis of the text of Pims stras as given in the Kik-vntti Dr. Kielhorn8 sums up his conclusions thus : The text of the Ashtdhyy as given in the Kik differs in the case of 58 rules from the text known to Ktyyana and Patafijali. Ten of these 58 rules are altogether fresh additions; nine are a result of separating (by yoga-vibhga) the original 8 stras into 17. In 19 cases iew words have been inserted into the original stras, vrhile in the rest there are other chaages iu the woidihg &c. of tho stras. Some of these changes had been alieady suggested by Ktyyana or Patafijali, especially in the raatter of vibhga. The additioral vrords also were mostly taksu
1 Ste above, pg* 9 note d. 1 OMindiau A n % ry voj, *vi, pp. 179 and Uowhfi

ystems o f anskrit GratAtitar

i *4 ]

from the vrtikas or from the nots in the Mahbhshya, as well as from some of the added rules. Most of the new matter found in the Kik can, however, be traced to Chandragomhi, from whose work he diligently draws his material without anywhere acknowledging his sources.1 This fact, as before pointed out, settles 470 A. D. as the upper lirait for the date of the Kik.
25. Jlnemtrabuddhl * Nyt on the KlkS. An excellent commenta'ry 011 the Kik called Kik-vivarata-pajik or Kik-nysa is the work of Jinendrabuddhi,5who styles himself This informs us about his religion ; as to his date he annot be later than 750 A. D., seeing that he is referred to by Bhmaha, who says that a poet should never employ a compound in tvhich a verbal derivative in is compounded with a noun in the genetive case, and adds that he should not support such usage by the authority of the Nysa, which presumably is the same as this work.3

The Nysa follows closely on the lines of the Kik and tries to incorporate into itself vvhatever new was produced upto its time.1 It is a pity that we as yet
1 Thus on iv. 2.338 Ksika gives the sutra ilself in conformity the vartika with the Chandra vykaraa. i which is Chndra Many more similar instances stra iii. 2.61 ; the ksriks on are given by Liebich in his v. 4.77 inthe Kthtka embodies edition o f the Chndra vyskastras iv. 4. 72 and 73, of raa. Chandra, the Ksik further 2 Govt. Or. Mas. Library, MadraS, remarkingff$r^*r#*ftnfamf Ms. no. 941 gives the name lwr ; PSinis stra as viii. 3. 118, ^ See, however,thereference8cited Chandra ch&ogea into at the end of page 35. note 2 gsffofe (vi. 4.98), following above. herein a vrtika of Katyyana 4 Compareaivtrr* Hrt*r3T*r fflWf

ffef

vrsvvr*
d%

*rm
tn 9 w r irUT

> wkile KKik reuds

t m i *4

C o m m e n ta r ie s o n K S i i k S

$9

possess not a single edition of this ancient commentary. There is no complete Ms. of it in any hitherto known collection, but the several fragments may yield a tolerably complete text. And the commentary is well worth the labours of a critical editor, to judge from such frag ments of it as were' available to me at the Deccan College Mss. Library.
26. Haradatta's Padainajar on the Kllk There is another valuable commentary on the Kik called the Padamafijar by Haradatta. Haradatta was, as he himself informs us, the son of Padma-(or Rudra-)kumra, and younger brother of Agnikurara; whilu his preceptor was one Aparjita. He was probably a native of the Tamil country and may subsequently have acquainted 'himself with the Telugu literature, as the instance of a vernacular word given by him seems to indicate.2 The Padamajar is quoted in the Mdhavya Dhtuvntti and by Mallintha, and itself quotes Mgha.3 According to a portion of the Bhavishyottara Pura giving the history of Haradatta (who is considered as an incarna1 Professor K. B. Pathak tells mo shortly (1912). Maitreyarakthat the Ms. in the Jain shita is reported to have writMatha at rvaa Belgoa, ten a comraentary on the which is put down in the lsts Nysa, but 1 have not been able as a Nysa on the ka$5yanato verify the statement. dabdnu&Saana, is really aMs. 2 These and the. following detuils of the above work, and goes are taken from Sheshagir! as far as viii. 3.11. I underShstris Report on the search standthat Prof.SriahChandra of Sanskrit and Tamil Mss. Chakravarti of Rajshahi Colfor 1893-94, Madrag, No. 2. lege, Bengal, has beon able 3 Bonares edition ( Reprint from to put together a tolerably the Pait) pages 657, 715 coraplete copy of the text line 2 (ssMSgha iii, 74), &c. from Mss. collected from ali KirSta ii, 35 is qnoted on corners of India. He is page 237 line 3 ; and Bhattialso going to publish the woik kSvy on page 541 Utte 16*

40

Systm s o f Sanskrit Grammar

5 aS-3

tkm of God iva,) ws learn th a t he died 3979 years after the beginning of Kali, which corresponds to 878 A. D. This account of the Bhavishyottara Pura probably doe Arot refer to our%Haradatta, seeing that it gives Vsudeva as the name of Haradattas father .1 Moreover, Haradattas Padamajar seems to be later than and partly based upon Kaiyyatas Mahbhshya-Pradpa ,2 and we cannot assign to Kaiyyata so early a date as cir. Soo A. D., which would be necessary if Haradatta is to be put at 878 . Probably, therefore, Haradatta belongs to somewhere about 1100 A. D. 27. Bhartriharls Vkyapadya.-From Padamajar, the commentary on the Kik-, we go back to the writer who according to Itsing was a contemporary of Jayditya, one of the authots of the Kik; and this is 1x0 other thtn Bhartrihari, the celebrated poet and grammarian whose date of death, according to the Chinese pilgrim, is 650 A. D. It is not necessary for us to consider in this place the different problems suggested by his name. He may or may not have been a king, a brother o a king or the author of the Satakas. Itsings account unmistakably
1 Mr. SheBhagiri Sbstri BUggests, geniouB but not convmcing, loc.cit.,that Haradattas father and itmuBtyield tothechronomay have been a Vaisbavo to 'logical evidence given below. begin with and may have 2 Compare Padamajar onii. 1.66 later changcd his name and (Benaresed. p 38411. 5fT.)\vitli become a aiva, just as Hara, PradTpa on tho sitme plaee datta hirneelf changed his ori(Nir. Sag. ed. of the Mahltginal name of Sudarana into bh8hya, part ii. p. 405). 8o the one which is more generalalso compare Padamajar on ly knovvn. 8ome nch ehange ii. 1. 70 (p. 385) "witb Pradrpa of name may appear to have ontheaameplacebid, p.414). been kinted at in tlie inlroMany more instances can be ductory s t a r u V T f V T likewise adduoed to bow the *t#lW T n g ffi i inderbtedneea of PaBmajarl BPEItrtr to tbe Pradlpa. tnm nT fvrg.B Ati tbi* is in-

[ - 28

Bhartvihori s V5kyapadiya

4t

refers to Bhartrihari the author of the Vkyapadlya and consequently also to the author of a commentary on the Mahbhshya. Regarding the lattor work ali that we can say is that it was probaMy never completed by the author. The Gaaratna-mahodadhi states that the commentary extends only to the first three fdas. 1 Aecording to Dr. Buhler fragments of Bhartriharis coniment exist in the Royal Library at Berlirr and in tbe Deccan. If they exist in the Deccan, they have not so far come to light. The Vkyapadlya is a metrical discourse on the philosophy of grammar, distributed into three chapters : the Brahma or Agama-kda, the Vakya-kda, and the Pada or Prakra-kda. The chief historical interest of the work attaches itself to the account given in about seven stanzas, towards the end of the second kda, confirming the statement of the Rjatargi about the fate of the Mahbhshya.3 The passage also contains the earliest reference to the ChDdra school, and mentions Baiji, Saubhava, and Haryaksha as grammarians who \vent before Chandrchrya or Chandragomin, and who by their uncritical methods of study contributed not a little to the neglect of the Mahbhshya during the early centuries of the Christian era.
28. Kalyyaas Pradipa as marklng the end of the second period In the hlstory ol the Pinya school.Betvveen Bhartri-

hari (650 A. D.) and Kaiyyata (the next great writer of the Pinya school whom we notice and who probably belongs to the eleventh century) we have no names of any consequence to mention. The period was indeed marked by a more or less general grammatical activity, but that
1 Compsre com. on G aaratnamahodadhi, et,3, TSTthe Mab3bb3sbya, vot. ii.
J India : what can it teach us V

MHvpmir rontni t
2 See preface to K ielborns ed. of 6 l Sk. Gi. ]

p. 352 ; Indian Antiquary tur

1876, p. 245,

 4*

Systems o f anskrit Grammar

28 - 1

was confined to the systems of grammar outside the Pinya school. These we shall notice in another place. For Pinis school Kaiyyatas Pradipa mrks the end of the second period of development. Kaiyyata vras probably, as his name indicates, a native of Kmr. His father was Jaiyyata surnamed Updhyya, and his preceptor was one Mahevara. In a coraraentary on Mammata's Kvyapraka written by Bhimasena (Samvat 1779=1722 A. D.) Kaiyyata along. with Auvata has been spoken of as the disciple and even the younger brother of Mammata. This statement is inaccurate if by Auvata is meant the author of the Bhshya on the Yajurveda-Samhit, whose father. was V ajrata; and since Bhimasena is a late writer we need not likewise attach much importance to the chronological relation betweeu Mammata and Kaiyyata as suggested by bira. Mammata was, we know, a great grammarian as well as a rhetorician wlio lived cir. 1100, and there is nothing improbable in his being a teacher to even 'Kaiyyata. Kaiyyats lower limit.is. given by the circumstance that he is quoted in the Sarva-darana-sagraha (cir. 1300).5 Regarding the nature of Kaiyyata's performance it is not necessary in this place to say much. He tells us in his introduction that he followed on the lines of Hari, that is, Bhartrihari,3 and he raay be pronounced to have been fairly successful on the whole in the task of interpreting the Mahbhshya. His work has been,
1 aftura: 3?r*ir nrsft Vnm^arrurntit irriSftfshj rorBrflHaorovPr RrftSr atr! H 2 Aufrechts Oxford Catalogue, p. 247 a. 3 Are we to auppoee, therefore, that Kaiyyaa had a coraplete manuacript Bhartriharia commentary on tbe Mahsbhffshya before him ? In that caae the Tripad alluded to in the Gaaratna-raahodadhi ( above, p. 41) muat be either a diatinct work, or may be no other than tbe Vskyapadlya itaelf, which ia in tbree oheplera.

[ - 29 Kaiyyata's Pradpa and commmtaries

43

in turn, commented upon by NSgojibhatta the author of the Pradlpodyota, by Nryaa who has written a Vivaraa upon it, and by varShanda the pupilof Satynanda who has composed another similarly named commentary. None of thesew riters seetns to be earlier than A. D. 1600. We have already spoken of Haradattas Padamajar, which is based upon Kaiyyatas work. For most of these rvriters who followed Kaiyyata there was very |ttle original work in the Pinya school that was leftAo he done. Sanskrit had long been established as a classical language; it ceased to be influenced by current speech in anv vital manner. Hence in grammar there was no occasion for any Creative work ; and even the work of critical elaboration bad well-nigh run its course. This was also the period of the early Mulmmmedan incursions, which necessarily preceded their permanent occupation of ndia ; and it was, as was to be expected, marked by a general decadence of literature, reflecting a corresponding ebb in the tide of social and political activities. The study of grammar, accordingly, succumbed to the operation of the usual laws of demand and supply. In the next century or two there may have been petty commentators here and there, and, possibly, some really great writers, but none of their names even have survived the ravages of time. Later when the clouds cleared a little and literature began to flourish, the demandfeeble at firstwhich some of the enlightened Muhammedan rulers created was adequately met by popular schools of grammar, like the SSrasvata, tvhich now sprang into existence.
19. K t t u l s o f the A fhSdhyiyI : The RflpamSlI. It W8S clear now that if the Pinlya granrmar was to keep abreast of the spirit of the times, it should have been remoulded and presented in easier and less epellent style.

44

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

5 29 - ]

The earliest and on that gro und the simplest of these recasts of the Ashtdhyy that has corae down to us is the Rnpaml of Vimalasarasvati, a writer who, if the date given in aiMs. of the work be true,1 must be placed not later than A. D. 1350. The arrangement of the work is in the style of later Kaumuds. After treating of ^ rr, and rfbrr'TT the author deals with in four sections : srtilSHK, suPSPT, and ; then follows declension in six parts: i TSTPHin^T, ii. S^imTT) iii iv. tH V TH TH , v. irregular words like Hl%.- <nff &c., and vi. Vedic irregularities. After these come fJpTTrrs, their meanings and grammatical peculiarities, ^ftar?*nrs, and relations. The longest section deals with the srreuTrs, the peculiarities of each being arranged under separate headings; and as an appendix we have and the last giving the circumstances under which verbs change their Tfs. The and the occupy the next two sections, the work concluding rvith a chapter on HHTH. It has been thought worth while giving the above details as they help us to show in what respects the later Kaumuds are an improvement on this their prototype. Vimalasarasvatis manner of presenting his whole subject is quite simple and attractive, if it cannot also claim to be exliaustive. The merit of later works consists mainly in a more systematic arragement and a somewhat more detailed treatment. Ali the same, the credit for having conceived the idea of such a recast and carried it irjto exe1 India office Ms. No. 612, whioh is stated to lmve been written in Samvai 1437 * 1379a.d. The same Ms, gives Sam, 1467 as another date. A Ms. deposited at the Deccan College ( No. 209 of 1879-80) is dated Sariivat 1507. Virnalasaraavali is quoted by Anuitabhrati, a writer of the Srasvata school, a manuscript of whose work bears the date a. d* 1496.

| 3

Recasts o f AshtHdkj&k

45

eution must utigrudgingly be given to the author of the Rnpaml.1

30. RSmaChandraBPrakrijlkaumud and Its cemmenlsrles

Next In chronological order comes the PrakriySkaumudf of Rmachandra, a writer who probably belongs to tbe first half of the fifteenth century. He was a Dakshini Brahraan, the son of a Kiishchrya, and was eminently versed in grammar and Vednta and astronomy, in ali of which he has written origin3l works of his own.* The Prakriykauraudl is supposed to have been the modei for Bhattojis Siddhntakaumud. There are several coramentaries extant on Rmchandras Prakriykaumud of which the most famous is the Prasda of Vitthalchrya. The earliest Ms. of the Prasda is dated Samvat 1605-6 = A. D. 1548-9 ; hence Vitthalchrya cannot be later than 1S2S A. D. As a grammarian Vitthala isdisparaged by Bhattoji, who often refers to him. Vitthala, in his turn, quotes from, among others, Kaiyyata, Trilochanadsa, Kshrasvmin, Durgasimha, Jinendrabuddhi, Bhartnhari, Vmana, Haradatta, and Bopadeva.3 Vitthala tells us that he was the son of Nrisimhchrya and grandson of Rmakrishchrya, while his own son was named Lakshmdharchrya. Another commentary on the Prakriykaumud that * demands apassing notice is the Prakriyprakla of eshaKrisha the son of esha-Nrisimhasri. As he tells us in the introduction to his commentary, which extends to 46 stanzas, he composed this comment for tbe benefit of Prince Kalya, the son of a (petty) king of Patrapufija,
1 B hatfoji D lkehita acknow ledges detaiD, for w hith ee BendaUt his indebtednea* to bim in Cat. of Mae. in the Dttlbar that be quotes him in the Libuarj of Nepal, p. ?li, Pratidha-ManoramS. 3 Aufreohte Qxford Oaialogue Tbe i&fomation camea from gi w ibeae and other names. Vitthala who alo gives other

Ststms d f Sanskrit Grammar

30 - ]

a small place in the Dmb formed by the Ganges and the

Vamun. esha-Krishna, as we shall presently see, was the preceptor of Bhattoji Dkshita, and raust accordingly be placed cir. 16O0 A. D.1
31. Bi>atto|r SlddhSntakaumudl rad otber trkM-UVe

next pass on to the deservedly famous Siddhntakaumud of Bhattoji Dkshita,a work which is remarkable not only by reason of the host of commcntaries and sub-commentaries that it called into being, nor again because it is at present practically the only popular introduction to Pini's grammar, but also owing to the factstrange as it may appearthat it has eventually ousted Pini him self and most of the other ancient authors of grammar, as also the nuraerous new schools that had lately sprung into existence. The work is too well known to need any detailed exposition. From the list of previous authors quoted by Bhattoji in this and his other works* we can gather that he freely availed himself of such help as he could possibly get. His indebtedness to one work, however, we learn, only from Meghavijaya, the author of Haima-Kaumud, who tells us that Bhattojis Kauraud was largely modelled upon Hemachandras abdnusana.* Bhattoji was the son of Lakshmdhara and the brother of Ragoji Dkshita, while his son was variously known as Bhnu-dkshita, Vrevara-dkshita or Rmi* raraa. Regarding the other details of Bhattojis life Jaganntha, the court pandit of the Emperor Shahajahan, informs us in his Manoramkuchamardin that Bhattoji was the pupil of esha-Knsha, to whose memory he does
1 Other commentariea on efikvrAufrechta Oxford Catalogue, are by rfbrrv, p. 162. by aimraftsunflH,, 3 Petereona report iii, p.291. I by am not ure about tha truth of 2 Jtn exhaotive*Uat ia givon in Una rtatement.

[ - 5 31

hattoji s 'sSiddhtntakaumudi

very scant justice in h is Praudha-Manoram. As Jaganntha himself ws the pupil of the son of this eshaKrisha, this gives us Bhattojis date, which must be about 3L D. 1630. This is also confirraed by the fact that a pupil of Bhattoji vrrote a work in Samvat 1693.* Bhattoji himself wrote a commentary on his Siddhnta-kaumudf, called Prai^ha-Manoram to distinguish it from an abridgment of the samtf called Bla-Manorara also by the same author. Besides shorter works such as commentaries oft thePinva Dhtuptha, LignuSsana, &c, Bhattoji vrrote the abda-kaustubha which is a voluminous commentary on Pinis Ashtdhyy similar in pln to the Kik. This was left, probably, incorap lete; though he must have written as far at least as the fourth hnika of adhyya iii, and uot only the first pda of the first adhyya, as is usually supposed.3 Besides Jagannthas commentary on the PraudhaManoram, there is another written by Nge, but ascribed by him to his teacher Hafi-dkshita,. just as Ngea ascribed another work, a commentary on the Adhytma-Rrayaa, to his parton. abda-kaustubha sirailarly is commented upon by Ngea and by Ngeas pupil Vaidyantha Pyaguda. To commentaries ancient aud modm on the Siddhntakaumud there is no limit. Those most famous are the Tattvabodhin by Jnendrasarasvati, pupil of Vmanendra-sarasvati, which treats 1 Compare ftr
f wq;wrcgHjf&e* w i l .....
*flrymqfiOTH.. 2 Deccan College M. No. 183 of A.1882-83, the author of which vflRvnntlV Vrt 3 Gov. Or. Ma. Library, Ifadraa, W vr m M luvl .I fifth Bbnika of abyya iii.

ufihufarrit

j/sms o f Sanskrit Grammar

3* ~ j

tbe classical language only and omits tbe svara and vaidik prakriy. It is mostly modelled on Bhattojis ovra comraentary and is very useful for beginners, Jayakrisha, son ol Raghunthabhatta of the Mauni family has urritten a ommentary on the svara and vaidiki prakriyS only of the Siddhnta-kaumud, thus complcting that of Jfioendra-sarasvati. Both these writers probably belorrg to the first half of the eighteenth century. Regarding the' abridgments of the Siddhnta-kaumud and otber shorter manuals based upon itwe shall speak presently. The family of Bhattoji Dkshita seems to have been a faraily of great writexs and grammarians up and down. Bhattojis nephew Kodabhatta wrote an original work on syntax and philosophy of grarumar modelled on the lines of his illustrous uncle and being in fact a discursive gloss on some 74 kriks of Bhattoji. Bhattojs son BhSnuji taught several pupils, as also his grandson Haridkshita. Among the pupils of the latter is ranked no less an illustrious nme than that of Ngojibhatta or N igea.
1 These relations would be clear from the fo llow in g geneological table

Author of

I 8 O D 8 1
on

dibciple

on

i
son
\ 1 ..............................................

diaciple

i V t i l g Author o the

srtrampr H f& n
son

(1650 A, D.)

disciple wrote in lo A. l>.

,

diBciple or H ih n w

disciple

wrdte in 1641 A. L > .

disciple

[ - 33

Works of Ngeh and Pyaguda

4$

32. The erki of NSge and of Va|dyuittltt

Ngea or Ngojibhatta vras a vcry prolific vrrifcer. Bosides fourteep great works on Dharma, one on Yoga, three on Alakra, and about a dozea on Vy.karaa-stra, he has been credited v ith the aufchorsbip of extensive commentaries on Vlmki-Rmyaa and Adbytma. Rmyaa as also on Saptaat, Gitagovinda, Sudbilabari, and other works. We are here concerned with his grammatical treatises, and prorainent amongst these is the Udyota on Kaiyyatas Mahbhshya-padpa; Paribhshenduekhara, a collection o Paribhshs handed down in connection with Pini's grammar and ollowed by a concise explanatory commentary on them called the abdenduekhara (in tvvo editions a major and a minor) ; a commentary on the Siddhnta-kaumud and intended as a companion to the Manoram ; Sabdaratna, a commentary on the Praulha-Manoram, ascribed by him honoris causa to his teacher Hari-dksbita ; Visham a commentary on Bhattojis Sabda-kaustubha ; and finally the Vaiykaraasiddhntamajsh (in three editions) on the philosophy of grammar. The geneological tree given above exhibits Ngojibhattas spiritual descent from his illustrious predecessors ; it also helps us roughly to determine his time. In addition vre have a tradition current at Jeypur, and mentioned by the learned editor o the KvyamlS in his introduction- to Rasagagdhara, tvhich refers to an invitation for a horse sacrifice received in 1714 A. D. by Ngeabhatta from Savi Jeysimha, ruler of Jeypur (1688 to 1728 A.D), an invitation which Ngea courteouslv declined on the ground that he had taken kshetra-sannyLsa and could not, therefore, leave Benares to attend the ceremony. Regarding himself he informs us that he w&s a Mahratta Brahman surnamed Ke, the son o Sivabhatta and Satl, a esident of Benares and a protegee of
7 [ Sk. G r.)

So

Systems o f Sanskrit rammr

32 - ]

Rmasimha, a local prince o rigaverapura (now Singarour) a few miles north of Allahabad. Vaidyantlia or Blarabbatta Pyaguda, a direct disciple o Ngeabhatta, wrote like his teacher several works on Dharma and Vykaraa-tra. He was the son c MahSdeva and Ve, and LakshmTdev the wife of king Chandrasimha o Mithil was probably his patroness, in whose honour he is reported to have composed a commentary on the Vyavahra-kda o the Mitkshar, which is usually known as Blambhatt. His graramatical labours are mainly confined to writing comments on the works o his predecessors. Thus he has written a Gad on the Paribhshenduekhara, a Chhy on the Mahbhshya-pradpodyota, a Kal on Vaiykaraasiddhntamafijnsh, a Prabh on the abdakaustubha, a Bhvaprakik on the Sabdaratna, Chidastliiml on the Sabdenduekhara, and a host o others.
33. Grammatlcal works outslde the Dkshita school.Inde-

pendently of the Dkshita school there are very few notable names o grammarians belonging to the seventeenth century. We may perhaps mention, as belonging to the early decades o the century, Annarabhatta the author of the Tarkasagraha, who has written an indenpendent commentary on the Aslitdhyy, called Mit kshar. The school of profound grammarians which is now almost dying out was already on the decliue since the middle of the eighteenth century, as is evidenced by the numerous easy manuals that have come into existence during the last tvro centuries. Some of these popular epitomes ally themselves to no particular school, and these will be dealt with in another part of the essay. We now confine our attention to those belonging to the Pinya school.
1 aUufbed ia tbe Benares Sanskrit Beries.

[ 3< 5

Abridgements and Manuals

$t

34. Abridgements and Manuals.Prominent among these are the abridgements of the S ddhnta-Kaumud! itself by Varadarja. There are three editions of them a madhya-, a laghu-, and a sra-Siddhntakaumud,the difference consisting only in the more or less thorough eschewing of unnecessary details. Strange as it mav seera, even these epitomes stood in necd of commentaries for their further simplification, or atuer tba reverse of it. The major abridgment was commented upon by Rraaarman at the request of one Sivnanda ; the middle one by a Jayakrisha, son of Raghunthabhatta and grandson of Govardhanabhatta of the Mauni family.1 There are a fe\v other easy texts framed independently of the Siddhntakaumud, but they hardly deserve special mention. The last stage of this progressivo simplification is perhaps reached when we come to works such as Rupvali, Sarasachakra, etc.
35. Later hlstory of treatises accessory to Pinis grammar.

It only remains now, finally, to speak of the further history of the treatises accessory to Pinis grammar mentioned by us on pages 25 and foliowing of this essay. These works, although originally framed for a particular system,had so much in comraon with other schools of grammar that they have been transferred with very little raodifications from one school to another. The successive stages of this process deserve to be made the subject of an independent study ; we cannot in this place afford to dwell on them at any length. We shall only allude to a few notable works in each line.
36. DbStupSbaThe Dhtuptha as we find it embodi-

ed in the Piniya system was commented upon by

1 The irfrirr has a simiiar abridgment calld the irork of one of the pupils of the author, and written in a, d. 1631 (?)

'$3

Sjtstems o f Sanskrit Grammar

36 ]

Kshrasvmin. A Kmrian tradition raakes him teacher to king Jaypda, which brings him into the eighth century. This conicts with the fa ct that Kshrasvmin quotes Bhoja, and in far as he is guoted by Vardhamna inthe Gaaratnamahodadhi, this settles his date, tvhich is roughly xo5o A. D.1 Besides the Dhtuvritti Kshrasvmin wrote five other works : i. comraentary on the Amarakosha, ii. iii. HTHTnfvfr referred to in the Dhtuvritti (which is more usuallv known as ), iv. fivug(f% meutioned by Devarja in his Niruktanirvachana, and v. Gaavritti referred to by Vardhamna in his Gaaratnamahodadhi, a work presently to be mentioned. In the introduction to the Dhtuvritti Kshrasvmin nots that several people, including the great Chandra, had essayed before him to write about the roots, but not always successfully.8 The Chandra here referred to must be Chandragomin, the founder of the Chndra school, whose Dhtuptha was subsequently incorporated by Durgasirhha with the Ktantra grammar. About the nature of the contents of the Dhtuvritti Kshrasvmin tells us that one can find therein : v^Mii^vinntt njRt i ffrmrfrP T T ftfrrra: 1 1 Of other works of Kshrasvmin it is not necessary to say much in this place. We next turn our attention to the Mdhvya-Dhtuvritti, which deals with the same subject and which was ritten by Mdhava or Syaa, the great Vedic Bhshyakra (1350 A.D). Syaa also mentions numerous workers in the same field whose labours he partly utilised. Among
1 8ee Introduction to Mr. Okas edition of KsblrasvSioina 00m. on Araara.
2 Compare *nrr* <tm vP>rrv-

r^rcir atft. ^ *rw fogfvt I rRffft wvv?W II

{ - 3$

A$tessory Treatises

53

these may be mentioned, as belonging to the Pinya school, Bhimasena and Maitreyarakshita.1 Of Slvaas successors ve need only specifj Bhattoji and Ngea. The Dhtupthas belonging to tho other gramraatical schools will be found in their proper places elsewhere.
37. Gaaph.~The Pinya Gaaptha has not received from corarhcntators the attention that it m erits.. Different portions of it, such as viptas, avyayas, and upasargas have been individually explahied by various writers, and Ksliirasvmin, as we saw, is reported to have written a Gaavritti, which is no longer extant. The only complete work on tho Gaaptha is the Gaaratnamahodadhi, vrhich is a metrical arrangement of the Gaas followed by a lucid commentary, both composed by Vardharana in A. D. 1140. 38. Llginusgana. Besides Rmachandra and Bhattoji, who have embodied the Lignusana in their Kaumuds and written commentaries upon it, we find mentioned in connection with the Pinya treatises on genders the names of Harshavardhana, abarasvmin and Vararuchi. Of these the first is probably not the same as the celebrated patron of Ba, while the second may or may not be identical with the great Mmskra. Vararuchi is another name for Ktyyana, and even if these be considered as different, so many late and spurious works are assigned to this great name that it is well-nigh difficult to determine the genuineness of any one of them. A palmleaf Ms. at Cambay, dated Samvat 1287 contains a Lig nusana by Vmanchrya, which mentions among its predecessors the works of Vydi, Vararuchi, Chandra, and Jinendra.2 This would at least decide for the existence of
1 Seo note 1 on pago 39, above. 2 Cambay, No. 266 ; nfijfiTfTO |V n 'g$qrntr
r lf lv tnP'T i fnifv 55$* m vi (HM'FfflUft rut &C. See aleo Dr. Petersons

54

Systm s o f Sanskrit Grammar

38-]

these works prior to 1200 A. D., and, i Dr. Petersons identification o Vraanchrya with the author of the Kik be correct, prior also to 800 A. D. 39J Udipha The question as to the authorship o the Painya Udi-stras has been already dealt with (p. 23, above). These Udis have been very readily absorbedwitli only slight modificationsby the various non-Pinya schools such as Ktantra, Hairaa, Jaumara, Saupadma, &c. In the school o Puni the future developraent of the Udis has been only by way o com mentaries, the best known being Ujjvaladattas Vritti, which, as pointed out by Aufrecht in his introduction to his edition o that work, rriust be assigned to cir. 1250. Ujjvaladatta quotes the Vrittis of Kshapaaka, Govardhana, Purushottamadeva, and the Sat-vntti,ali of which preceded his own commentary. Later than Ujjvaladatta come Mikyadeva, Bhattoji, and others. 40. Paribhshs. Already we have more than once alluded to the Pinya paribhshs. Pini himself gave a e\v of these as his stras, but he can be proved to have tacitly employed a stili larger number.' Ktyyana quotes one, according to Patajalis showing, in his vrtika 3 to stra i. 1. 65, while Vydi, who according to some was a near relation of Pini, is credited with the authorship of almost ali the paribhshs now current. The doctrine o the paribhshs was, however, fully elaborated by Patajali and the writers who came after him.2 So much ingenuity and energy has been spent on the
Report iii. p. 41. The Jinen- 2 For Ihe istinction between dra here mentioned must be iTPr S' and inthiai and the the founder of the Jainendrawho!e theory of psribhSshs VySkaraa. see ibidem, pp. 115 (Reprint, 1 Goldstiioker: Pini, page 114 p. 89) and the folloving. (Reprint, p, 87).

[ - 4*

Aceessorji Treatises

55

paribhshs that eventually it has become, for the Pinya student, the hardest nut to crack. This fe# has usually been attempted in the body o the commentaries themselves. Regular treatises specially dealing with paribhshs come much later. Perhaps the earliest known is that of Sradeva, vrho is quot.ed in the Mdhavya-Dhtuvitti. Ngeas Paribhshenduiekhara coutains the most popular exposition of the- paribhshs, and it has been commented upon by Pyaguda, Bhaira\amira, Seshaarman, Bhmabhatta, and many others. Non-Pinya schools copied most of their paribhshs from Pini, the earliest of tbem being the Ktantra for which Durgasirhha put together a list of paribhshs and wrote a commmentary on the same. This is also the place where \ve can introduce a host of treatises on the philosophy of grammardealing with questions such as the nature of sound, the connection between word and its meaning or of sentence and its component parts, and so fortli. The issues have been raised and dealt with in the Mahbhshya itself, and later writers have derived most o the material for their lucubrations from that source. The earliest of such treatises is the Vkyapadya of Bhartrihari and the latest deserving a special mention is the Vaiykaraasiddhntabhshaa of Kodabhatta, a commentary on which was written by Ngea. A multitude of smaller and larger lights came in between. The works are mainly special monograras on particular topics, the kraka relations alone having engaged over forty writers of different schools and opinions. 4 t. Resum? ol the history of the P!nlya school Here per haps we may draw a deep breath and, before proceeding with the history of the non-Pinya schools of grammar cast a hurried glance over the field that we have already travelled.

ystm s o f anskrit Grammar

41 - ]

Beginning vvith the dim and half poetic speculations of the Brahmanic exegetes, we saw how the science of grammar flowed onward broadening down from precedent to precedent until we reach the age of Yska who sums up the results achieved by his predecessors and makes his own contribution to the stream. The leap from Yska to Pini is probably a very great one, but the course of development is, to a large extent, hidden from usis underground as it wereuntil it issues in a perfect form in the Ashtdhyyi of Pini. The subsequent history of the science is marked by three well-defined stages. The first which ends with the Mahbhshya busies itself with the perfection of Pinis work, adding a rule here, restricting the application of anotlrer there, and so on. This period may be characterised as the Creative stage of the science. This is followed by a period of critical elaboration, the chief \vork of ivhich consists in giving a precise point to these rules, changing the wording of some for the sake of brevity, of others for including in it a word or two inadvertently left out by the earlier grammarians, or not in vogue in their time ; but for the main part in writing vast commentaries on the vorks of their predecessors so as to explain their intention. This was also the stage when the theory of the paribhshs and jpakas was worked out in details. The branching offi from the main stem of a separate school, the Chandra, which belongs to this period, is to be explained as due rather to the necessities of the tinies, than to any real split in the domain of the science itself. This period cxtends roughly to about 1000 A. D. The last stage mrks a progressive deterioration in the study of grammar. We have in the first place the rise of a number of neW and popular schools of grammar intended to simplify the science for the enlightenment of

[ - 42

The Chndra School

57

the laity. Following the wake of the tinies we have, side by side, numerous recasts of the Ashtdhyy tending towards the same object. The lowest stage is reached when we come to the populair handbooks of the eighteenth century. How far this decline is to be attributed to the political aspects of the time is more curious than profitable to inquire. Certain it is that they could not have failed to produc their influence, though it is easy to exaggerate it. Nor, finally, should it be forgotten that broad characterisations of long periods in the history of any country or science have always to be accepted with limitations. The periods often overlap, and in this present case they are tentative only and may have to be revised in the light of later researches. It is time now that we turned to the non-PinTya schools of grammar.1

The ehSndra School

42. The Cilindra School.The earliest reference to the Chndra school of grammarians occurs in Bhartharis Vkyapadya (see p. 41 above), while one of the latest is perhaps that of Mallintha, who quotes a rule of his in his commentary on Klidsa's Meghadta, stanza 25 THPf fnrirrfMV#:)-5 Mallintha, however, does not appear to
X The order in vrhich schools arehere presented isnotstrictly chronological, the allied schools being taken together. 2 In the passage cited Mallintha says that while Pini allow only the form Chandra allowv flOTT also. As a matter of fact Chandra allows only one form (Chndra etra vi. 1.42); it is katyana and Hemachandra who ,allow 8 [ Sk. Gr. ] both the forms, which are indi8criminately used ia claasical Sanskrit, Presnmabljr, therefore, Mallintha either had access to a work of the Chndra school not known to us, or more probably he meant by Chandra Hema-chandra, unless the whole is a posltire mktake. 1 owe tkla ftte to Mr. Kshji Gotihda Oka, editor of the Kshlratarafifir.

58

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

42 - ]

have had a direct access to the Chandra vykaraa, seeing that Mss. of the vvork have been extremely rare, none of the various *Searches for Sanskrit raanuscripts instituted by Government' having been able to brmg to light any works of the school except a fragment brought by Dr. Biihler from Kmir in 1875, and a complete copy of the Chndra vykaraa written in the Nepalese year 476 (i. e. 1356 A. D.) brought by Haraprasda Shastri from Nepal.] However, by the labours of Dr. Bruno Liebich, the whole system has now been recovered in the original or Tibetan translation. The same scholar has also published the Chndra vykaraa (Leipzig 1902). The ac count of the systera given below is mostly based on his writings.
43. The date of Chandragomin. Chandra, or more accurately, Chandragomin must have lived at least some time before the authors of the Kik, which has borrowed, always without acknowledgment, such stras of Chandra as have no parallel either in Pini or in Ktyyana. This gives us 650 A. D. as the lower liinit for Chandra gomin. The upper limit is supplied by a vritti on the Chndra stras, most probably the worlc of Chandragomin himself,8 which gives the sentence 3T3Higfit(? Ms. vrFr or 5nft) as an illustration of the use of the iraperfect to express an event which occurred within the lifetirae of the speaker. This victory over the Has can refer either to their temporary defeat by Skandagupta soon after 465 A.D., or (less likely) to their final expulsion by Yaodharmas in 544 A. D. This gives us 470 as the approximate date for Chandragomin. This result is further confirmed by the fact that Vasurta the preceptor
1 See Nechrichten der Goettinger Datum Chandragomins und Gesellachaft 1895, pp. 272-321. KlidSeaV, p. 3. 2 See Dr. Liebichs paper Das 3 Who, however, was not a Gupta.

[ - 44

Chandragomin: H is Work

59

of Bhartrihari acknorvledged Chandrchrya (Chandragom in) as his master.1 Chandragomin must have lived therefore at least two generations before the author of, the VkyapadvsR Ali accounts agree in stating that Chandragomin has a Bauddha. He was one of the laity, and is not to be confused with Chandradsa who belonged to the order.s
44. Nature of Chaoragomins work, Chandragomins grammar was meant as an improvement on that of Pini, Ktyyana, and Patajali, mainly in the way of greater brevity and precision. Accordingly he has omitted, for obvious reasons, the Pinya rules about Vedic accent and grammar, although he includes some Vedic roots in his Dhtuptha. He has lessened the number of pratyhra-stras by one (fusir.g itt and gru into gnvtHH), omitted some of the Pinya pratyhras and coined others. In many cases, the rules of Pini are recast simply for the sake of securing facility of pronunciation.-3 The really original contributions of Chandragomin amount to about 35 stras and these have been incorporated in the Kik. In ali these cases Kaiyyata has the remark mfin'jfpr trrj:. The total number of the Chndra stras is about 3100 as against 4000 of Pini. The vvork consists of six chapters of four pdas each, the matter of Pinis first two chapters being scattered ali through.

The object of Chandragomin was to rearrange the grammatical material with the object of bringing together ali the rules that deal with the same phonetic or grammatical operations as well as the same ]5art of
1 See Vkyapadlya Ksna ii, 130; also Iml. Aut, xv. pp, etanzae 489 90 and com. 183-184. thereon. 3 For Pffinie 2 Liebicb, ibidem,p. 10-11; Kern: (i. 1. 55)Chandra readafiMaaual of Buddhigin, pp. 129, ffrpr ( i- 1.12 ).

Id

Systems o/Sanskrit Grammar

44 - 3

speech. The ChSndra terminology with slight changes is that of Pini'. The mode of presen ting the subject is also artificial, after the fashion of Pini. The gramar goes by tffe nickname of arira, perhaps because the tfnrs are not here treated of separately, but probably be cause wherever in his stra Pini has used the word ^ r r Chandragomin uses the word Hirra;.1
43. Accessory treatises of the Chndra grammar.In addition to the stras in six adhyyas Chandragomin has put together an Udi list in three parts, a Dhtuptha in ten sections (both published by Dr. Liebich), as also Ligakriks or Lignusana, Gaaptha, Upasargavritti, and Vara stras. The Udis differ from those belonging to the Pinya school principally in their mode of presentation, the suffixes being here arranged according to their final letter. In a few cases Chandra also derives the words differently. The Dhtuptha, as we saw (p. 52, above), is referred to by Kshrasvmin and was subsequently incorporated in the Ktantra system. The Lignusana is referred to by Vmanchrya, Ujjaladatta, and Ryamukuta (see above, p. 53). As to the Gaaptha no separate vrork of the kind lrns yet been discovered, but we must assume the existence of such a work as we find it embodied in the stra-vritti, just as the Kik has done \vith regard to the Pinya Gaaptha. The Upasarga vritti is found in Tibetan version only, and explains the jneaning and use of about twenty upasargas. Finally, the Varastra (Ms. no. 289 of 1875-76 in the Deccan College collection) is a very short treatise8 corresponding to the Piniya iksh and gives in about 40 stras
1 Compare Chndra sfitras i. 2.30, Chandra pormits the use of i. 3. 77, ii. 2.14, &c. witb the word: e. p. Chandra i, 1. Pinis iii. 2.46, iii. 3.174, 123s=Pini iii. 1.112. ii. 1. 21 &c . A few cases 2 I take this occasion to publish do occur, however, where the work entire on the hasis

[ - 46

C hSndra S c h o o l : L a ter H isto ry

61

the and mJHT of Vh. No work on Paribhshs in connection with the Chndr school has come down to us. Besides the above grammatical vvorks Chandragomin is credited with the authorship of a religious poem called Sishyalekh, and a drama called Loknanda, neither probably of much consequence.
46. Later hiatory of the ChSndra school. We have already

alluded to Chandragomins own vritti on his grammar. Fragments from it extending from about v. 1. 13 to v. 1. 176 are stili extant. This vritti was later incoporated in a commentary by Dharmadsa, a complete Ms. of vrhich exists in the Library of the Mahrja of Nepal. It is undoubted that there must have been vvritten numerous commentaries on the Chndra Vykaraa during the palmy days of Buddhistic literature; and they must have been very popular, seeing that a good many of them have been translated and freely circulated in Tibet at least since 1000 A. D., if not earlier, vvhen Sthiramati, one of the translators of most of the Chndra texts in the Tibetan language, probably lived. Some of these vvorks had also gone to Ceylon along vvith other Buddhistic texts. However, at present, in addition to the vvorks above raentioned, only a fevv moreabout fifteenare known to exist, mostly in Tibetan translations. Such of the Sanskrit Mss. as we knovv of, come ali from Nepal. Having once enjoyed such a vast circulation, the almost total disappearance of the system from India requires explanation. We can account for this fact, firstly, on the ground of its vvant of originality, such of the original matter as there wasand it vvas not muchbeof the only Ma. of the work 1 For a list of these see Ind. Aut. known to exist. See Appenxxv, pp. 103 and ollowing.

dtxl.

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar 46 - ] 4 # ing already incorporated in the Pinya school through the Kik. Mainly howeve'r we must look to the cause of its disappearance in its non-secular character. Being the work of a Buddhist for the Buddhistic community, it shared the fate of Buddhism, and having obtained vogue for a fevv centuries it gradually ceased to be cared for, its aid being invoked in later times only for the sake of justifying an otherwise unjustifiable word, or for poiting out and rejecting such of its rules as went counter to the established system of grammar. The Grammar, we are told, is stili extensively studied in Tibet. In Ceylon its fate was different. Being a Buddhistic country we expect the Chndra system to be diligently studied there. As a matter of fact, the current Sanskrit grammar in Ceylon belongs to the Chndra school, but we shall look in vain for any original Mss. either of the Chndra-stras or of commentaries thereon. The reason is that about 1200 A. D, a Ceylonese Buddhistic priest, Kyapa by name, wrote a popular recast of the Chndra grammar called Blvabodha. It corresponds to Varadarjas Laghu-kaumud in treatment and subject-matter. The work was so popular in Ceylon that it quite superseded the original Chndra text, with the result that ali other Chndra works have disappeared in course of time, just as the works of the pre-Pinya grammarians did after the advent of Pini. Under these circumstances, it is quite irapossible to pursue any farther the history of the Chndra school of grammarians in India.

62

The Jainendra School

47. The Jainendra School. The traditional author of the aphorisms of grammar which go under this name is Jina or Mahvira, the last of the Trthakaras. The tradition

[ - 47

T&e Jainendra School

of the Digambara' Jains as erabodied in several of their works such as Samayasundarasr.ris commentary on the Kalpastras or Lakshmvallabhas Jpadeamlkarik is, that Indra asked certaiu questions to Jina when of eight years, and had the science of gpjjrmaar revealed to him by way of answers; the grammar in consaquence came to be known by their joint name.2 A Ms. ( p o . 1223) belonging to Professor Kathavates collection for 18911895 launches, in its marginal nots, into a detailed verification of this tradition, trying to answer ali the objections raised aganist it, The chief objection, of course, is the concurrent testimony of the colophons of ali the Mss., which invariably ascribe the work to Devanand. This is also confirmed by the introductory stanza trnr fSrrarcrnroret 1 which is given by ali Mss.,3 wherein the first word of the second line, obscure in meaning as it is, appears to be purposely used to indicate the name of the author. Further, vorks like Dhanajaya-koa or Jaina-Harivama4 (A. D. 783) and writers like Bopadeva or Hemachandra refer to Devanand as the author of this grammar. The point then may be regarded as fairly settled. This Devanand is otherwise known as Pjyapda.
1 The Jainendra-gutraptha be 3 Except the one above quoted, longs to the Digambarag from whicb gives a different mawhom the vetmbaro have gala. borrowed it whole6ale. The 4 In the opening praasti of the tradition, therefore, belongs work thfre ie a reference to more strictly to the vetmthe Jainendra-vyskaraa. Akabaras. lafikadeva also quotes a Jain2 endra autra in the fa rn i ffa ri. 5.1.

Systems 0 / Sanskrit Grammar

5 47 3

Dr. Kielhom once believed that Pjyapda was a nom de plme assumed by a late writer, with the view ali the more readily to make the vrork pass under the name of the last* Tirthakara. The historical existence of the founder of this school thus doubted by Dr. Kielhorn has been conclusively established by Professor Pathak,1 who quotes a verse from the Nandisagha Pattvali2 and gives other references to prove that Devanand was no other personage than Pjyapda himself.
48. Date of the Jalnendra-vykaraa. The foundation of this school dats from about the same time as that of the Chndra. If anything, the Jainendra would come a little before the Chndra. Professor Pathak in his paper on the Jaina katyana (Indian Antiquary, Oct. 1914) gives evidence to assign the Jainendra-vykaraa to the latter part of fifth century A. D. Among his arguments are: 1. the fact that the Kik seems to betray a knowledge of the Jainendra-vykaraa3; 2. the circumstance that the Jainendra stra1 alludes to varakrisha the author of the Skhya-kriks ( who is assigned by Dr. Takakusu to A. D. 450) and to the twelve year cycle of Jupiter ac cording to the heliacal rising system5 a system which was in vogue in the time of the Early Kadamba kings and their contemporaries, the Early Gupta kings; and 3. the collateral evidence to be drived from later references to the Jainendra from the ninth century on. Thus the kat-

2 iRTisftftrtnFipTsfl'

1 Indian Antiquary xii, pp. 19 ff. mr-

4 Stra iii. 3.134 f^m orw r ^gw Fm rrw -

S"m rr: Pini, iv. 1.102. TheAmo3 Kffiks iii. 3.40 TSTTOT vrHetfcft ghavritti of SkaSyana expresuppoaea Jainendra plaina 3fffi r$wWifl atra ii. 3. 36 fW r^yH PRthe latter beirg another name V '%i, aa K liks could not for varakriaha. have derived it from elae- 5 Stra iii. 2.5 where.

i - 49 fainendra-vy$karaa . Its haracter

' 65

yaria abdnusana (which dats from 1025 A. D., as we # a l l see) is largely indebted to the Jainendra. A Diambara Daranastra of I853 A. D. mentions, as stated by Dr. Peterson,1 a pupil of a certain Pjyapda as being the founder of a Dravida-sagha. Lastly, an iscription from the aHkhabasti tempie at Lakshmevara records a gift in faka 652 (730 A. D.) of r-P9jyapda to his house-pupil, although this l^st is not quite a trustworthy evidence, being not contemporanfcous, and there may have been more than one P 9jyapda.
49. Character ol the Jalnendra-vykaraa. There are tWO versions in which the Jainendra grammar has come down to us. The shorter one which consists of about 3,000 Stras is followed by Abhayanandi in his gloss on the grammar, while the longer one evhich, besides other minor diiferences in the wording and the arrangement of the stras, gives over 700 stras not fond in the shorter version, is followed by Somadeva in his commentary called abdravachandrik, which, as he himself tells us, was composed in A. D. 1205. Professor Pathak has accumulated evidence tending to show that the longer version followed by Somadeva is the truer one, while that of Abhayanand is much later.8

The Jainendra grammar is altogether wanting in originality. It is nothing but Pini and the vrtikas condensed as much as possible. The merit of the v/ork solely consists in the number of ingenuous shifts resortefl to for the purpose of securing the maximura economy of words. Even the most triing changes such as that of or into Tr, of into , and the alteration of the order of the words in the stras3 so as to
1 Beport for 1883-84, p. 74. subjeot. 2 Professor Pathak intends short- 3 Paini vij. 1.9 w rf f*rcr ifa. is Iy to rite a paper on the ohanged into foftsiT Vff

[Sk,t.)

66

Systtms o f Sanskrit Grammur

. \ 49. - J

produc by coalescence a yllable less are not disregarded. The PSiniya praty 5 hSras are retained without a cbange, though the fourteen iva-stras together with tbe section on, Vedic grammar, are omitted. In addition, Devanand has invented a large number of shorter techni cal ternrs1 vvhich bristie throughout his vvork and make its study the most coraplex imaginable. Devanand alias Pojyapda has, as is the wont of most Digambara vvriters, novhere quoted by name or acknotvledged his obligations to authors and works not belonging to his ovvn religion. He has in his stras quoted six names.2 The Deccan College Ms. no. 1223 of 1891-95, which raakes it its business to prove that the author of this grammar is Jina himself, gives on this point a rather incorrectly vvritten note* whicli tends to say that since one of the above names, that of Prabhchandra, which occurs in the satra snuraFJHU, appears on the face of it to be a liction, we may presume the same for ali the rest. We can couple with this the statement of one of the commentators on Hemachandras Dvyiirayamahik 3 vya to the effect that Siddhasena, another of the quoted names, was not a graramarian at ali. Dr. Kielhorn similarly believed that ali these names were fictitious and thought that the practice of thus quoting names honcris causa was not conned to the Jainendra school alone. Unfortunately we cannot decide the matter now.
80. Later hlftory of the Jainendra-vyakaraa..The absence of any originality accounts for the paucity of vvorks connected vvith this school. Two commentaries only have
1 Such u w for * rm , v for
v tt v , n fo r e v A m r, 3,11 fo r

3 vvvTs#m (?)nt

1 rriti
1 fredf o n a l w hp

ond 0 on.
2 Namelv, efpflT, Vtfthft

1 (hrm w r t
tn m m H r i

11

[- $0 Jainmdra<ykaraa : Later History

67

been preserved, one by Abhayanand whose date i> probably 750 A. D., and another callcd abdniava-chandrikl by Somadeva. Somadeva represents1 himself as the contemporary of the ilhSra King Bhojadeva (Bhoja II) and an inhabitant of Ajurik (\vhich is probably to be identified with arnft in the Kolhapur State). It is probable that in addition to these trvo commentaries that have come down to us, some other s were written, and possibly the grammar was at one time made the object of diligent study; but our information on this point is extreraely scanty. There is also a recast of the Jainendra grammar meant to facilitate its study for beginners. It is called Pafichavastu, and, as is to be expected, it follotvs the shorter text of the Stras as given hy Abhayanandl. The work is said to be that of Devanand; but this is clearly a mistake i'ounded 011 the fact that the stras follovved are those of Devanand. The introductory section of the Pachavastu which deals with the pratyhras seems to be an interpolation. This section mentions a person called rya-Srutakrti3 as the author of the whole work. Is he then the author of this recast ? If so, the absence of any other allusion to him in the body of the vvork becomes rather curious. Professor Pathak mentions a rutakrti as having flourished about aka 1045. About the history of the Jainendra grammar since the thirteenth century very little definite is known. The work probably shared the fate of ali imitations and ceased
1 Compare the Col ophon nm r $ t.iLtTkvn^
mm

ft w -

.........................2 Indien Antiqury, x, p. 75; .fhfht Dr. Petereo Beport for 1883-84, pp. 67 ff.
; M I1

68

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

5o -

to be attended to when the original on which it was based carae to be studied more and more. It was meant to appeal to a sect and even there it was not without a rival. To this day it draws a solitary student here and there from amongst the Digambara Jains, especially of Southern India.

The Saktayana School

51. The kafiyana School.Separated from the Jainen dra school by some two centuries or so but much allied to it in its object and the mode of treatment comes the katyana abdnusana, which, like its predecessor, was meant to appeal to a limited body of co-religionists : the vetmbara Jains. To judge from the number of regular commentaries and other accessory treatises in connection with this school and from the numerous references to it in works like the Gaaratna-mahodadhi, MadhavlyaDhtuvritti and so forth, it would appear that at one time the abdnusana was largely studied among raembers of communities other than those to whom it \vas primarily addressed. There is not much originality in the work itself to deserve this popularity.

52. The founder of the fikayana abdnusana not the ancient fikayana but his modern namesake. The name Ska-

t,yana suggests, as \ve have seen, a very high antiquity in that it is quoted in the Nirukta (i. 3) and in Pini's Ashtdhyy (iii. 4.111, viii. 3.18, viii. 4.50), Here, however, we are dealing not with the ancient katyana none of whose works have survived even in namebut with a modern or abhinava katyana: with the person who under this appelation is quoted, for instance, in Bopadeva's Kmadhenu,1 by Hemachandra. and other later writers.
1 Colebrooke, Mil. Bsay8, Vol. II. p. 44; Aufrecbti Oiford Catalogue p. 17C a.

r 53

Abhinava-katyana : His Date

69

The late Dr. Kielhorn once expressed doubts as to the historical existence of this modern katyana. He inclined to the mew that it was some modern Jain writer who has presented his own grammatical labours under the auspicies of a revered name, carefullj trying to follow the views attributed to him in ancient works and possibly having for its basis some of the teachings of the earlier Skatyaua. Professor Pathaks paper on the Jaina Skatyana (Indian Antiquaiy for October 1914) has now conclusively established not only the historical existence of the author of the abdnusana but his exact date. The katyana who wrote the ab dnusana also wrotc the Amoghavritti, tvliich was w ritten2 in the time of Amoghavarslia I, the great Rshtraknta king whose knorvn epigraphic dats range from A. D. 817877.
53. Character of th% kayaaa abdnusana.Besides the older grammarians such as Pini, Ktyyana, Patajali, and Chandragomin, katyana lias freely drawn upon the work of Pjyapda the author of the Jainendravykaraa. Many stras of katyana are identical with those of Pini,- and in cases where they differ the object has been to say in shorter and fewer \vords what
1 Carefully but often inaccmately: Thus in sutras iii. 4. 111 and 112, Pini tells us that the Imperf. 3rd perB. plu. of *r is on!y according to katyana, but not so in his own opinion. This e^tablishes fitvrTT- Now the modern kayana also rnakes the rule optional and allows botli forms in his sntra l This is wkat Pini teachea, and not what Pini represents katyana to have taught; 3 2 The most concluaive proof for this is the use of the instance to illus trate the use of the iinperfect (sutra Iv. 3. 207) to deseribe a \velI-known past event which tho writer might have personully witnosed but did not. There is inscriptioual evidence to prove that tho event in question took place short!y before aka 789 or A. D. 867 (see Ep. Ind. vol. i, p. 54, Ind. Ant. vol. xii, p. 181). E. g. Pinis i. 3. 11, ii. 1. 1, viii. 4. 40, &c.

Systtms o f Sanskrit Grammar

53 ]

was already intended by Pini.1 Most of the new matter.is taken, from Chandragomin2 (without acknowledgment of course) and where he has improved upon Chandragomfn, the improvement was already suggested by the Jainendra stras,* independently of which there is hardly anything new that we can put to his credit .* In his stra i. 2.37 katyana seeras to quote Indra who probably is to be identified with P 5jyapda, the founder of the Jainendra school. The Skatyana abdnuasana consists of four adhyyas of four pdas each, the total number of stras being about 3,200. The arrangement of topics is similar to that of later Kaumuds. ' He gives thirteen rnmnrtprs and following the suggestion of Ktyyana has omitted from them the vowel and assigued therein a place to the nffrmfs. He d5S?not, of ccurse, treat of the Vedic grammar. His ingenuity is mainly confined to economising the \vording of the stras. Except in three8 cases, he has invariably substituted the monosyllabie wherever Pini had used or 3rir?TTW P9 ( or had quoted the name of some ancient authority. The most striking instance, of this tendency is given perhaps by
1 E-g. srn t f ffrernfrrr gives v r v w tm r r A (iii 4. of Pini (i. 1. 71). 143), and 80 also doea k&f 2 Instead of PSiniH iv. 4. 9, ytuia. The like hold trne of V T > Chandrft gives tftPinia ii. 1 18, ii. 3. 34, ftuntraftl o also dces <ic. ffkayana. 5 Namely irkatyana stras ii. 1. 3 ls giving Chandragomini im 229, i, 2 . 13, i. 2. 37 (corresprovement M * .onding to Pinis v. 4. 154, o n P tinia ir o f f : (v. 1. 126) vii. 1. 79, and vii. 2. 101 &katySna e c o n o i u is e s one reapeotively), where f ik a tS y l labie by giving the litr a a s y a n a quotes a*T $W , t berein imitatand fejj. Whether, these three ing Pjyapda. n a m e s a re m e re ly or 4 For Pinis ferrernft (v. 2. there were before him gram133), Chandra gives .funparmarians o f that name cannot termt (iv- 2 . 130), Jainendra be determined.

[ - 55

ikatUyana School: Later lii$tory

fi

Pinis stra v. 2,128, which runs H>i'ttTlBlyqTl% i$-t Chandra changed this into *n*f( =fff) n( =T3WW )ifiw nmSJmr, where tbe substantial change is the addition of the qualifying clause katiyana says just what Chandra said, but instead of puts a form which is shorter by full two syllablese8fir*ai. In his technical terrainology also he has often taken up Chndra words in preferencc to Pinis wherever the former were shorter. Thus he has used and am instead o f^mr, *r^TT*ry, an?*r^r and rtfita* of Pini. 54. Other works of the lkiiymna school. Besides the abdinusana and the Amoghavritti katyana is credited with the authorship of i. Paribhsh-stras, ii. Gaaptha in sixteen pdas, iii. Dhtuptha, iv. Udi-stras in four pdas, and v. Lignusana in seventy ry stanzas. Of these none is older thau tbe corresponding Piin!ya treatise. One expects to find in the Udi-stras at least traces of the ancient katyana and his works, but he is sure to be disappointed in his expectations. The other treatises also do not call for any special notice. Hemachandra based his own Lignusana on that of Skatyana, of which, in fact, it is only an enlarged edition. 55. Later hlstory of the lkaiyana school. The later history of the katiyana schoolas is the case wjth almost every grammatical schoolis to be divided into two parts: tbe period of commentaries and sub-commentaries, and the period of digests and manuals. The periods often overlap chronologically. Of commentaries on the Skatyana abdnusana the most noted are i. a Nyta quoted in the Mdhavya Dhtuvritti. Probably this is
1 The Ms. in the Jain Maha a f rSraa Belgota is not, as reported, a Me. of the skasyana NvSsa ; it is a Ms. of Jinendrabuddhis KnikBviva" rsspsjikS, and an ahuost complete Ms- for that, written in Canerese cbaraoters. See before, note 1 on paga 39.

72

Systems o f Sanskrit farammar

55 - ]

no other than the Nysa by Prabhchandrchrya, which is in the nature of a comraentary on the Amoghavntti.1 And ii. a comraentary called Chintmai by Vakshavarman. This vvas throughout based upon the Amoghavntti and lays 110 claim to originality.2 Nevertheless it has been honoured by many sub-commentaries such as the Maiprakik by Ajitasenchrya, Chintmaipratipada by Magarasa, and a Tippa by Samantabhadra. Besides regular commentaries there. have been produced at least two or three recasts-of the Skatyana grammar. The best of them is the Prakriysagraha by Abhayacliandrchry, published ut Kolhapur, 1907, Abhayachandras date ollows from that of his pupil Keavavari who in Saka 1281 (=A. D. 1359) \vrote a Sanskrit conunentarv 011 Gomatasra, a philosophical work in Prkrit. Abhavachandra thus llourished during the first half of the fourteenth century. I11 his recasl m Abhayachandra has omitted a large number of the origi nal sitras, \vhich \vere unnecessary in a \vork for beginners, and amplified a few others. His arrangement is closely modelled upon works like the Prakriykaumud. Another aud a stili shorter abridgment of the Skat,yana grammar is the Rpasiddhi by I)aypla, pupil of Matisgara and a fellorv-student of Vdirja alias Jayasirhha II, tbe Chlukya einperor who was reigning in Saka 947 (=A . D. 1025). The work is somewhat similar in scope to the Laghukauniudl.
1

Legardtiig

the

Am oghuvvilli,

prove the dopendenco o f this

kat5;yanas own couimentury commeiitary on tho Amogbaon his stras, see Professor vritti are given by Professor Pthaks paper (Ind. Ant. for Pathak, loc. pit. Ootober 1914). 3 For these facts I am indebted to CompareerwfS*wff $ Professor Pthnks paper in tholud. Ant, for Od. 1914.
h

Extracts to

[ - 57

The Hemachandra School

73

In course of time the katyana abdnussana came to be fairly ousted from the field by a powerful rival in the shape of Hemachandras abdnusana, which like its predecessor1 was addressed to the Svetmbara Jains, with the result that even Mss. of works belonging to the school are at present very rarely to be met with outside of Southern India, which was once the centre of its greatest influence.

The Hemachandra School

56. The Hemachandra School The last, but not on that account the least, of these sectarian schools that we have to notice is the one wUich is knovvn under the name of its founder, the Jain monk Hemachandra. About Hema chandra and his times we know a good deal more than what \ve did regarding the founders of the other schools hitherto described. The biographical material regarding Hemachandra has been brought to a focus in Dr. Buhlers German pamphlet* entitled 'Ueber das Leben des Jaina Monches Hemachandra/ Wien, 1889. 57. Life of Hemachandra. Hemachandra was born on the full-moon night of the month of Krttika in the year of Vikrama 1145 (corresponding to A. D. 1088 or 1089, November-December) at a place called Dhunduka, now in the British Collectorate of Ahmedabad. His parents \vere humble banias, Chachiga and Pahini by name. He was originally named Chgadeva. The mother was a
1 That 5kaSyana was vetSmbara Jain is prove by the n u m e ro u s references to the &va4yaka-s>tra,Chheda-stra, Niryukti, Klik-stra, and other v etS n ab ara works found in the Amoghavritti. 2 Besides the ffiffrs foun in Hemaebanras writings thia work is based upon U H TV 9Tby and (1250 A. D .), by (1305-6 A. d .), by m r i H (1348-9 a .D .), and b y fk Tm'ST ('1435-6 a . d )
v f k s r

io [ Sk. Gr. ]

74

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

57 ~ ]

good pious woman, aud the birth and the greatness of her tvould-be son was conveyed to her in a dreara vrhich was interpreted for her by a religious teacher named Devachandra. When Hemachandra was a boy of five, Devachandra requested Pahini to surrender the son to the Service of religion, offering considerable money in compensation. The money vras refused, but the boy was given over, who, at Cambay, on the i th day of the light half of the month of Mgha, being Sunday, \vas solemnly received into the order of the Jain Priesthood, taking on that occasion the new name of Soniachandra. During the trvelve years that followcd his ordination, and of vrhich our information is verv scanty, Somachandra probably devoted himself to learning vrith great zcal. On the conclsion of his studies he was consecrated as Sri or chrya, once more, and for tlie last time, changing his name to Hemachandra. The next glimpse that we have of him is at Anahillapattaka as the acknovrledged head of the greatest of the many Jain communities there. Jayasirhha otherwise called Siddharja, \vas tlien on the throne, ruling from (Anhilvad-) Patan an empire which extended from Abu to tiirnar and from the evestern sea to the borders of Malva. He was a municent patron of learning and an earnest enquirer into religious ti uth. He never abandoned the vorsliip of Siva vrhich \vas traditional \vith his house, but it was his delight to gather religious men from ali quarters and to set them discussing before him the truth of their systems. Hemachandra early attracted his notice and he sought to conciliate, if not actually to convert, his sovereign by the use of clever parables inculcating suspense of judgment and eclecticism. There are several stories current about Jayasimha and Hemachandra displaying the latters shrevrdness in contending with his Brabraan enemies nt court.

[ - 5*

llmachandra: is Work

75

After the death of Jayasimha (i 143 A. D.) KumSrapla, his nephevv, came to the throne. The first ten years of his reign he spent in victorious warfaie ou the northern frontiers of his kingdom. When he had nothing to ie a r from his enemies, he settled do\vn to a peacefui and contemplative life. In this case there is no reason to doubt that Hemachandras exertions resulted in the king's conversion. A draraa cslled Moharja-parjaya is based upon this fact. It is the oldest of our authorities for Hemachandras times, being written by Yaahpla, minister to AjayapSla, KumrapSlas successor, According to the dranra Kumraplas conversion took place in Samvat 1216, the second day o{ the bright half of the month of Mrgarsha. It io at the request of Kumrapla and in order to establish him in his new faith that Hemachandra wrote the Yogastra, just as, ere long, he had written the abdnusana at the request of Siddharja or Jayasimha. During the closing years of Kumraplas reign he, in company with Hemchandra, made many pilgrimages to Jain saered places in Western India. Hemachandra, who was now an oetogenarian, soon felt his end drawing near, and he boldly set out to meet it by means of He was 84 at the time of his death. KumrapSia died only six months after him. With their death the glories of the Jain erapire also came to an end, after a brief existence of unparalleled hrilliancy.
98. Nature of Hemachandras -abdnusanaRegarding

Hemachandras grammar (th e

full title of \vhich is

work, of eight adhyyas of four pdas each, the total number of stras being about 4,500. Of these nearly a
1 A cortain ooraraentator eiplain tbe flrit pert of the title tbu rftflKfR f i n p 1

yww il l uufe ^ i

76

Syslems o f Sanskrit Grammar

5 58

-]

fourth part of stras is given by the last adhyya alone, which deals exclusively with the Prkrit languages which were now in their most flourishing condition. In the remaining adhyyas the arrangement of subjects is natrai, only slightly differing from that of the Kaumuds. Hemachandra's object in writing a new grammar for the benefit of his illustrious patron was to say in the shortest possible manner not only ali that his predecessors had said upon the subject, but everything that could be said. Accordingly he has drawn freely upon the urorks of ali the grammarians and commentators that had gone before him : indeed in some casesespecially in regard to katyana's abdmdsana and the Amoghavrittihis dependence is so close as to amount to almost slavish imitation.1 Hemachandra wrote a commentary on his own stras called abdnusana-Bri had vritti. This commentary is profuse and learned, quoting the views of many writers always under the general appellation of arcr:, <rr:, *rwr, q*:,?r8ra.etc. for approval in some cases and refutation in most others. A commentary called NySsa on this Brihadvritti identifies a large number of these quotations* and if properly edited along with Hemachandras Brihad1 Some typical instances vvill be 2 These are t f s ihfh^, fonnd collected by Professor TVmTV, mwf&, orarrVSf, WT% Pathak in the Indian Antit o t , flTa n sft, vjpftffcn quary for Ootober 1914, page *rr 209. That Hemachandra doee rertV, nf&rtft, HT*V*rrr (other now and then add a bit of his wise $iqrnr or ftjtr), Tar ovrn is proved by instances liks the sfltra tft irii^ srr \, |p tW i eud (Pffini ii. 1.18), which ttkamany others. The TVntVPT is Byana gives as rft probahly fcmnr, while ( s t ) , while Hemachani s probably the same person dra givee as c ft r who is quoted in the AmogbaVSS T Tf t i vritti at iv . 1. 252-3.

[-59

Acce$sory Treatises

77

vritti it is very likely to shed considerable light on many a dubious point in the history of Indian grammar. At the end of each pSda of the vritti Hemachandra, by way of a praasti, has added a stanza in praise of his patron and his family. They are ali given together in a note to Dr..Biihlers pamphlet above referred to, and are written in the usual classical style of flattery. An abridgment of the.Brihadvritti for the first seven chapters of the abdnusana is also attributed to Heraa* chandra, and may probably have been \vritten with his concurrence. It is a mere patchwork, containing nothing new or original. Mss. of it date as far back as cir. 1350 A. D., and one old palm leaf Ms. calls it, instead of abdnusana, Laghuvritti-abdSnusana-Rahasya. To illustrate the rules of his grammar, Hemachandra has composed a poem, resembling the Bhattik 5 vya, which is known as Dvy3raya-mahkvya.
59. Treatises accessory to HemactaanOras abdlnulaana. It

is not necessary to describe in fuller details the treatises accessory to Hemachandras abdnusana. These a re : i. Haima-Dhtuptha, which is arranged for the most part like the corresponding treatise of PSini; ii. USdisntras, numbering a little over 960; iii. LiSgnufsana, a metrical treatise, being an enlargement of the katyana Lignusana and divided into eight sections; 1 iv. GaapStha; v. A collection of Paribhsbis; and some others. For the most part these treatises are embodied in Hemachandras Brihadvritti, from which they seem to have been subsequently extracted and published in a separate form. It is doubtful whether the vivaraas or vrittis which are given in Mss. of the LiBgi* nuiSsana or of the Udistras do really come from
1 Nameiy
and

78

Spstems o f Sanskrit Grammar

59 - ]

Hemachandra. Here, as in most of the commentaries on the >abdnuasana, the colophons of the original work are mistaken for those of the commentaries themselves.
60. Commentarios on Hemacbandras iobOlnuBuna.The most iraportant and extensive of these commentaries or rather sub-commentaries is the Bnhadvntti-dhudhikg. No complete Ms. of this work has been hitherto discovered, the lon^est estending only upto the fth adhyya. The Mss. miijifferently call it tf'farr, s r r f , and rStvr. Its authorship also is equally uncertain. Many Mss. and reports ascribe it to Hemachandra, which is very probably a mistake. A Ms.1 from the Deccan College collection, which contains the commentary on adhySyas vi. and vii, is stated to have been the work of Dhauachandra. Another2 Ms. of the Dhudhik purports to be the work of Jinasgara, while a third which contains only a fragment from the SkhySta section gives Nandasundara as its author. These conflicting statements it is very hard to reconcile, The m ost probable view is that there were two slightly varying versions of the Dhudhik and consequently there may have been two separate authors. Whether each wrote a commentary on ali the seven adhyyas or only on portions from them it is perhaps impossible to decide. The Dhudhik on the eighth or tho Prkrit chapter 1s the work of UdayasaubhSgya, pupil of H&rshakula of the Laghutapgachchha. It was vritten in 1533 A. D. during the reign of Bahadur Shah of Gujarat (1525-1537). The object of a Dhudhik is to take the various stras of the abdnusana in order, esplain them word by word, and in the majority of cases to quote instances of its application, deriving the several forms step by step by bringing in the necessary stras. Another very useful commentary on the Brihadvritti is by Devendrasri, pupil of Udayachandra of the Chn1 No. 10 o f 1877-78.
3 No. 119 of 1869-70,

L - { 6i

blgests, Hanmls, tc.

dragachchlia. It is called HaimalaghunySsa and purports to be an abridgmeut#of a larger Nvsa by Udayachandra, the author's preceptor.1 This latter work has not coute down to us. The importance of this commentary mainly consists in that it refers many of Hemaehandras's- quot&tions to their sources. A third anonymous commentarv Galls itself abdaraahrvany5 sa. There do not seem to be existing any more commentaries .vorth the.name. 01, Dlgests and manuais and other mtsceifanenaa worke. Smaller manuais based on Hemachandra's abdnusana have also come down to us, the most famous by far being the Hairaa-laghuprakriy by Vinayavijayagai, pupil of Krtivijayagai. It was composed in Samvat 1710= r652 A. D.2 A commentary on it called Hairaa-praka was also written by the author some twenty-five years later.3 A second digest referred to above,1 called Haimakaumud alias Chandraprabh, vras put together in Samvat 17*5 (=1669 A. D.) by Meghavijaya, one of the saris who "by the command of the lord of the country (Deapati) tvere provided with quarters for the rainy scason in the palace of Agarvara.' This tvork is said to have been the modei for the Siddhntakaumud. The facts raay have been just otherwise. Of lesser lights we have i. Puyasundaragaui who arranged for the school the different Sanskrit roots in their alphabetical order giving after each root its meanng, gana, and other conjugationalpeculiarities; ii. Srvallabhavchanchrya who wrotein Samvati 6 < 5i ,
1 Compare tbe folloving gtanzas from tha Praagti: . jf irfjfbvSlSJtST 3 Compatei #

natvr-1 dimuium ww$4ii ^ s rur^l im u iru t nrfbfl- Spnr. 2 Compare .

vramt v*^i imttaf *

4 Seo before, page 46, note 3. 5 reteraone Beport iii, page 10.

8o

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

6i - ]

during tbe reign of Srasimha alias Siwairj of Jodhapur, 1594-1619 A. D, a commentary called Dargapadaprabodba on Hemachandras Lignusana;1 iii. Hemahaihsvijayagai wbo put together a collection of about 140 Paribh shs or maxims of interpretation used in Hemachandras grammar, and wrote a commentary on them called Nyyrthamafij0sh, in Sarhvat i 5 i s s or A. D. 1457 at Ahmedabad; iv. Amarachandra, a pupil of Jinadattasri of the Vyadagachchba, who lived about the middle of the thirteenth century and wrote a work, called Sydisamuchchya, on declensions and their irregularities; and v. Guaratnasnri who wrote a work, called Kriyratnasamuchchaya, on the use and onjugational peculiarities of the more important Sanskrit roots. He was the pupil of Devasundarasri and wrote this work in Samvat 1466 (=A . D. 1408).3 At the end of his work, in nearly 80 stanzas, he gives a succession of spiritual preceptors which is of considerable historical importance.
62. Conduslon of the Hemachandra achool.Hemachandra was a prolific writer. In nearly every branch of litera ture which he touched he has left one'or more important works behind him. The school of grammar which he founded was not, however, destined to have a very long and even career of popularity. After the age of cothmentators which had its fullest swing in the fifteenth century, the work fell more or less into neglect, perhaps for lack of originality but more probably because of the sectarian character of its founder and followers. Outside its circle it has not exerted much influence, while in its own circle it had to stand against two predecessors, Jainen dra and katyana, and at least one successor, Malayagiri

'

(? ^ 5) 1jnsvrmrStf

1 rfftitsil&c,

[ - 63

The KHiantra School

8i

who wrote a abdnusana of his own and composeda coram entarj on it durirrg the life-time of Hemachandra him self, if we are to trust the evidence furnished by the in stance m i< a. given in the commentary.1 This would make Malayagiri flourish betw*en A. D. 1143 and 1174. Malayagin, unlike Hemachandra. usedpratyhras and foliowed on the lines of the Kiautra as well as katyana. Unfortunately, the onlv Ms. of this work that has so far come to light is incomplete, and nothing further could be said of this work here. Regarding the Prkrit chapter of Hemchandras abdnusana and its subsequent history for, it had an independent developraent of its ownwe need not discuss it in this place as it is beyond the proper province of our essay, which is limited only to the Sanskrit schools of grammar. From these sectarian schools of grammar we shall now tura to schools which are rather cosmopolitan in character, being designed raainly to appeal to the masses to schools whose*object was to say just what is sufficient for a proper understanding of the language, to which grammar was considered, and justly considered, as only ancilloryto schools, namely, which go by the names of the Ktantra, and the Srasvata.

The Ktantra School

63. The Kitaotrn school. The name Ktantra, according to the commentators, means a short treatise, a handbook in other words in whicli the niceties of Puini's grammar have been dispensed with for the benefit of beginners. This view gains plausibility from a statement in the 1 Sss Dr. Kielhorne rsport for 1880-81, page 48.

11 [Sk.Cr.]

82

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

63 - ]

Vykhyuaprakriy' which says that this grammar fras priin,irily designed for the use of 3T ^ r : r 1 Ib^rr vnf%HTHdrTtHrf?HS0r ^ n <fl4;<ranfcs %mr--1 ttrr %rr jrsfrvrrcbt \Vober in his history of Indian Literature p. 227 nots that this grammar was raeant for those who wished to approach Sanskrit through Prkrit, and that the Pli gram mar of Kachchyana tvas based upon the Ktantra. We have else where (page 10) spoken of the relation whicb Dr. BurnelI discovered between this and the Tamil grammar, and of these again witli the ancient Prtikhyas and other Aindra treatises. AU accounts thus agree in stating that the Ktantra grammar was not the creation of a school, but was rather meant to satisly a real popular n eed; and lookiug to the intrinsic merits of the vork itself, as also to the host of commentators that have been attracted towards it, it is clear that the work must have 9erved its purpose pretty well, at least for a time.
64. Traditional account about arvavarman, tbe founder of

tbe school. The Ktantra is otherwise known as Kaumra or Klpa, and the traditional explanation2 of the genesis of these two uames is as follows : There once lived in the Deccan a king called Stavhana who, while one day iiaving jala-keU evith his queen, was requested by her rnra, meaning Pray,do not sprinkleany more
1 Mh, N o. 816 of 1875-70 from 3 I h he to 1* identified with ike

the Deccau College Lihrary. 2 The tradition is tnentioned in Dr. Bflblers Report for 187576 , p. 74, and dotailed in tbe 3K 7TqwT 0f<uh W jE UT h f f**m, a Ms of whioh is No. 50 of Notics, Second Series, by Herapracada ihastri.

Anhra King of that nams mentioned on p. 208 of V. A. Smiths Early Hitory of India, third edition, pnblished in 1914? In tbat caae the beginning of tbe Ktantra will hate to be pnt in the ftxvt oentnry of the Chrietian era

[ - 65

Traditiom l Origin o/KUtantra

83

water on me. Thereupon the ignorant king offered her some (tn^Es) svreets. Subsequently,discoveringhiserror and being much asbamed of his ignorance of Sanskrit, he requested his Pandit naraed arvavarman1 to devise a speedy method of learning grammar. The Pandit in his difficulty besought God iva who ordered his son Krttikeya or Kumra to accede to his wishcs. Accordingly, Kumra revealed the stras of the Kaumra grammar. As the Gods vehicle, the bird Kalpin (peacocK), vas tlie iustrument of communication, the stras also obtained their other name. This traditionlike most others of its kiud has probably a germ of truth. The date of the rise of this school as given by the tradition is not at ali inconsistent vrith other ascertained facts. Thus Durgasimha the earliest known coromentator on this granrmar cannot as we shall presently see, be later than 800 A. D., and when vre consider that he may not have been the first commentator on the Ktantra, and that, at any rte, the Straptha known to him cannot be neeessarilv identical vrith that vrhich was original, seeing that considerable difEerences are observable betvreen his Straptha and that current, for instance, in Kmir since 1100 A. D., vre may for the present accept the first century after Christ as the century which witnessed the rise of this grammar.
65.
pStha

Evldence tor later Interpolattons In the Ktantra Stra

Corning novr to the work itself we notice that the Straptha vrhich now goes under the name of arvavarman is divided into four parts ;
i. Consisting of E^TRT?, (ETTR*) TT?,

vw r>
ta vmtmmm* te

(arnpjr*) tmr sreaHttpN (Nf*)nd [fnnwTi

Sni* 0i tfc*

1 I adopt thie form of the name * Tbe terred names are derived

Syttems of Sanskrit Grammar

ii.

$ 65 - ]

fUHUHirmOonaiging of f*TTHT (fltf*) < T T tf SUSfSTOI-

Ttr *n%<nT*> 5**rmr- v rm n r, mmrmr* > .

iii. ?n% mrnr, and [ fh rn n m r]. of JTtPTn?*, 4 U?m(M<Hu[Oonsiating

itHspn<r*> tu-u^ontr^ , j o t ?, a r f ^ n r , f gNHTTT* and gum*.

iv. g fT O Jt-C o n g istin g of ftrf&TTOr*. V ^ l , TSPTT?*. [jOin ^ TT^l and V^r^JfVpnT*-

In this connection the tirst question to be raised is : Does the fourth partthe ^fsrgrmrbelong to the author ship of Sarvavarman himself, or was it only tacked on to his work by a later hand ? Most coramentators, including Durgasimha, note that the word f%rv^ which begins the tirst section of this prakaraa is *rpHr. A magala it is true, may come at the beginning of the work as a whole or in the body of it : before coraraencing the various subdivisions of it. In this particular case Durgasirhha tells us Sfor He elsewhere tells us that the ^Tsrerror is the work of Ktyyana.] Jogarja the author of a work called the Pdaprakarnasagatiand piobably the same person who is alluded to by Makha (circa 1135-45 A. I).) in his rkatha-charita, agrees in not assigning the ^rU-TH to the authorship of Sarvavarman ; only he makes katyana their author. Lastly, Raghunandanairomai, the author of a cominen. tary3 on the Durgasiriiha-vritti, credits Vararuchi with the authorship of the prakara in question snhnhrr
Otra* commeucing the vanou gectiong. Alternatvs name* are encloae within circular bracketa. See note 2 on page 27 before. fehia *r*rk givta a to picai an lygig of tbe Kstantru-stia. It is printed in Apptndis 2 011 the basia of the Deeean College Ma. 292 of 1875-76. .1 A Ma. of the work is no. 853 of Notioaa, Seoc*d 8ii.

1 8

[ - $ 65 Interpolation in KUtantra-Sitraplitha
h

85

sfm1twr: 1 iTsstf sgmf^rr: irtftfosoOrtniu rf ^f^TRnrsnr 1fSTrf^Rllfit 1 Whoever be the real author, it is clear that the is a later addition to the original straptha. Another clear case of later interpolations m the Ktantra straptha is furnished by the three sections in roctangular brackets sfhTfWr, and duuf^Mm which are absent in Durgasiihh&s commentary but which are regularly found included in the KmT rian strapthav And even in the sections which are comraon to both these there are so many variant readings3 that we are probably justified in inferring that the Ktantra sntra ptha was in a very unsettled and changeable form when it reached Kmirprobably long before it found an expositor in Durgasiniha. Finally,the ?rferiVr? belonging to the secondprakaraa seems likewise to be not of the authorship of arvavarman. The stras in this section (like those in the ^TTUHnmT as given by the Kmirian tradition) naturally arrange themselves into anushtubh stanzas ; and although some stras here and there from this section have been in Professor Eggelings edition of the Ktantra printed as such stanzas, stili this general fact has not yet received sufficient attention. The inference is obvious. If arvavarman did not think it necessary to teach the section to his Royal
1 Vararuchi is often an alias of KtySyana. The India office Ms. no. 855 purports to be Vararuchis com. on his own which re inst these Sfitras Ontside Kmir the place ol these sections is taken up by a Lignusana in 86 Srys, attributed to Durgitma, who is protbly net tbt same pe mn as Durgnsimba ; and by an Udipha put together by Durgaaimha himself. This latter work dilfers consider %bly from the grorrfg^fg i' cluded in the regular Kimrian siitrapStha. 3 A few such are collected in Dr. Bfihlers report for 1875*76, page cxxxiv

86

Systems of Sanskrit Grammar

{ 65 - ]

pupil, no more did he care to teach him the rrftnr section (or the HuHnr section). And as it cannot be urged that the affcr section formed for the king a harder nut to crack than, for instance, the arnHna section, there was no apparent need for Sarvavarmans running into poetry aud that for one or two sections only. The facts may have been these : A manual which made the king proficient in grammar in a few months time must have attracted the early notice of the courtiers and subjects of the king. The omission of and other sections may then have been noticed and rectifiedeither by the origi nal author or soine other scholar. And the impetus to such additions being once given, the Ktantra from being a mere handbook issued fortb into a full-blown system. 66. Nature oi arvavarmaos worlr. The nature of the im provements made by arvavarman on the current textbooks of grammar is evident even from that portion of the Ktantra which we have no hesitation in accepting as his own genuine work. These consist in i. dispensing vrith the artificial arrangement of the letters of the alphabet introduced by Pini, and retaining in their stead their natrai arrangement such as is found in the Prtikhyas.' ii. AsaconsquencethePinyapratyhras, which result in brevity as well as unintelligibility, are dispensed with, their place being taken by the earlier and simpler Safijs such as sussr, hhth etc. This has saved the system the defining stras, of which there is such a number in Pini. iii. In the distribution of the subject matter, in preference to the old artificial arrangement of Pini there has been adopted one which is natrai or topical, similar to that of the later Kaumuds. iv. Lastly, as was essential in a work designed for beginners, the
1 The first titra of the Ktantra-

[ 68

KUtantra School : Early Historv

whole o the Vaidik prakriy of Pini and ali the other rules of an exceptional or difficult character have been simply omitted. Thus instead of the nearly 4000 stras of Pini, arvavarman could finish his work in about 855 stras, or including the section, 1400 stras only.
67. Barly hlstrry ol the Ktantra school The intrinsic merits of the work as also the fact that its author was patronised by a potverful king of the Deccan ensured its rapid circulation even in countries as rcmote as Kmr and Ceylon. The explanation of this popularity is also partly to be found in the fact that there was an urgent demand for such a work. The (ext-books in use prior to the advent of thisschool were intended rather for Pandits, and monks than for the merchants and agriculturists, in whom nevertheless the desire to learn the language of the Scriptures and of refined society was 110t quite absentl This led to the detec.ion of inaccuracies and omissions in the original version of the grammar, which came to be rectified in the course of study, so that the original Straptba of arvavarman experienced, in the course of the next two or three centuries, the addition of the afijt and ftr?tnr TT^s, and the substantial assimilation with Sktyanas or Vararuchis During the period of its ensuing extensive circulation other minor changes or additions may have been made from time to time. The text must in any case have been pretty fairly fixed in at least two recensions, the northern and the Southern, before it found an able coramentator in Durgasimha.
68. Durgasimha and uia vltti.^Vhether Durgasiiirha had any predecessors in the task of expounding the Ktantra cannot now be ascertained. His was probably the first systematic attempt where necessary to ezplain and amplify 1 the Ktantra grammar so as to make it as thorough-

8y means of giviag vSrtika,

(oma of wMcb later comtne,::teters have inaorporeted with

the original etr&a. Cf. Egg 1 ing's odition, Nots, p. 57?.

Ststtms o f Sanskrit Grammar

68-]

going as possible, without running counter to its original object of ease and simplicity. As Durgasimha is quoted by Heniachandra, and as he knew the Chndra Dhtuptha, on the basis of which he put together another Dhtuptha for the Ktantra, Durgasimha probably is to be assigned to the eighth century. As the verse introducto ry to his Udistras contains an invocation to God iva, Durgasimha probably was not a Bauddha, and if so, he is distinct from another Durgasimha, the author of a commentary on Durgasiriihas vritti, whose invocation2 points unmistakably to his faith. Durgasimha is also to be distinguished from later writers such as Durga, Durgtma, and Durgchrya. ' The last is the author of a commentary on the Nirukta, and one of the first two, if indeed they are two personsg vvrote a Lignusana to the Ktantra (see note 2 on page 85). Conunentsrles on Durgaslhas vltti. Writers subsequent to Durgasimha have raainly confined themselves to writing commentaries on his masterlv vritti. The earliest of these is the Ktntravistara by Vardhamna,* whose patron was Karadeva, who probably is the same who ruled Gujarat in A. D. 1088. Vardhamna is ofteu quoted by Bopadeva in his Kvyakmadhenu. A writer called Mahmahopdhyya Prithvdhar wrote a subcommentary on Vardhamnas work.
j u im<Tt 1 or^1II It has a ring o f that fa ith a lio u t it. The other a we saw whh
h

69.

Bauddha.

4 Goldetuckei uelieved biru tu be

Tbia Durga at} Ies Durgasinlm

at vnrw n

Compare

the aame aa tbe authoi Ga&ratnamabodadhi,

cd th<*
vorh

Eggelings N ots, p. 465

3 One of them mu y hare been

ocmposed (
r iftartfftg ) in 1139-40
a. d.

; compre the v e r s e

[ 7

'treatises Acccssory to Kntantra

89

The next in succession comes Trilochanadsa,1 who is also cited by Bopadeva and by v itthala the commcntator on the Srasvata. He may have oome very soon after Vardhamna. His commentary is called Ktantravrittipajik, and from it vve learn that the author was a Kyastha, the son of Megha and father to Gaddhara. Trilochanadsa has been himself commented upon by Jinaprabhasri alias Jinaprabodha,5 by Kuala, by Rmachandra, and by other more modern vrriters. Mahdeva, the author of a commentary called Sabdasiddhi, a Ms.3 of which bears the date Samvat 1340, is chronologically the next writer whom we ha vc to notice. As, however, there is very little known about him either from his own \vorks or from those of others, we shall pass on to later writers. Of these vve have already alluded to Durga or Durgtma, author of a commentary on Durgasrirhas vritti, who has often been confounded with Durgasimha himself. An anonyraous writer has vvritten a Dhudhik on the Ktantravritti, probably modelled upon asimilarly namcd commentarv on Hemachandras Sabdnusana. No other commentaries on the Ktantra that could be definitely assigned to a period anterior to 1500 A. D., are now extant. See, however, 72.
70. Treatises accessory to the K tantra.We have already incidentally spoken above of the treatises accessory to Ktantra. There are not many of them, and the majority o them are much later productions. The earlier ones are the Lignusana in 88 rys by Durga, and the 1 He is not to be identified with the author of that name who wrote the Ktantrottarapariishta to irlpalidattas supplement. 2 For particulars about Jinapra12 [ Sk. Gr. ] bodha see Petersons Report for 1896-92, Indes ; and Kielhorns report for 1880-81, Mss. noa. 85 and 36. 3 Ms. no. 00 of Dr. KiclhoiU B colleotion for 1880-81.

90

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

76 - j

Udiptlm and the Dhtuptha by Durgasimha the author of the vritti. The Dhtuptha is modeiled upon that of Chandragomin, evitli only slight modifications. The genuine Klpa-Dhtustra, which differs considerably from the above, is no\v reported to exist only in a Tibetiau translation. 71. H istory of the Ktantra school In Bengal.No definite information exists as to whcn the Ktantra was introduced into Bengal. In the fiftcenth and sixtcenth centuries there arose in Bengal a host of commentators and writers of supplements to the Ktantra, and the grammar is there to this day most assiduously studied. Some of the most fanious of these Bengali evriters are : i. Kavirja who tuotes Trilochanadsa and is quoted by H arirm a; ii. Kulachandra who is quotcd by Rmadsa ; Goplntha Tarkchrya who is commented upon hy Rinachandra who also vrote a commentary on the Ktantravrittipajik ; iii. Srputi who wrote a supplement to tlie Ktan tra tvbich is honourcd \viih commentaries \vrittcn by Gopintlia Tarkchrya, Rraachandra Chakravarti, Sivarma Chakravarti, and Pudarkksha ; iv. Trilocbana (not the older Trilochanadsa) wlio rvrote an Uttarapariishta, giviug therein such information on vttj, aud mm r as had escaped Srpati ; and several others, Most of these \vriters came from the Vaidya commuuity of Bengal, aud tlieir object in ali cases has been, by prtini or \\holesale borrotving from ali availablc sources, to make the Ktantift as complrte and up-lo-date as possi ble, so as to prevenl its being neglccted in the course of the struggle for e.vistence which begau \vith the modern revival of Pini under the auspices of the Kaumudkras, and the simultaneous springing into existence of a large nuruber of other modern schools of grammar. At present, as before observed, the study of the Ktantra is coiifrned to onlv a few distriets of Bengal.

C- 73
72.

Srasvata School

9t

In k m r the school had a slightly varied development. The Strapatha received there was, as \ve saw, considerably different from that known to Durgaimha ; and we can hence conclude that the Kmirian Pundits got faiuiliar with the works of Durgasimha much later. U nl.il then they busied themselvea with \vriting original comraentaries and digests on the Ktantra mhich, as Dr. Biihler observes, has been the grammar of the Kmirians from the twelfth to the sivteenth century. Only a fe\v of their \vorks in Mss. have so fai been available. There is among others st evorkf called the Biabodhin by Bhatta Jagaddhani tvith a Mysu upon it by a \vriter called Ugrubhiti, who, if identical vvith his name-sake who was a teacher of grammar to nandapala and \vhose book (as Albern says) \vas uiada fashionahle in Kmr by liberal donations from the royal pupil to the Pandits, must be placed in the latter part of the tenth century.' Another rather well-known book is the Laghuvritti by ChhichhubhaUa, which perhaps belongs to about the same timeX Of later and less important books there is quite a number. The modm popular books of grammar in- Kmr are based on the Ktantra.
Hlstory of Ihe Ktantra school In KSsmlr

The Srasvata School

73. The Srasvata school : Its date The origin of tha Srasvata school of grammarians cannot be put down to a date very much earlier than 1250 A. I)., when Bopadeva the author of the Mugdhabodha flourished, seeing that he 1 Sea Vincent Sniiths Early History of Iiulia, Third edition, p. 382, note. The Deccan College Ms. of the work brought gver by Biihler in 1875-70 contain* at the eml the foI!owing colophon: fafo for whieh perhapg tanda 1037 = 1115 A. D .

02

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

73 - ]

nowhere refers to the Srasvata school. If the school existed in his daysif it had attained a sufficient standing in the eyes of scholarswe sliould naturally expect Bopadeva to mention it, just as he does many other established schools and authors. Nor does the school appear to have been known to Hemachandra. Further, none of the commentaries on the Srasvata belongs to a date earlier than 1450 A. D., and the majority of them were w ritten in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Looking to the native places of the different commenta; tors and the places where the Mss. were copied or discovered, it has to be admitted that the influence of the school, even in the most glorious period or its existence, was mostly limited to Northern India : to Gujarat, Nagapur, Udepur, Bikaner, Delhi and Bengal. The school continued in vigour down to the modern revival of Pini under the auspices of Bhattoji Dkshita and his pupils, when most schools of grammar began to decline and were driven into the oorners of Bengal and other out-lying districts. The Srasvata school vvas proliably the last to go. These facts when taken in conjunction with the extremely simple and brief manner in which the Srasvata treats its entire subject700 stras1 as against the 4,000
Sevcn hundred stras i . e., in the original struptha of the schcol. This ussertion is made on the basis of the Deccan Gollege Ms. no, 239 of 1892-95 which gives 597 mlasdras plus 91 more vartiks or mktavyasy thUB reaching the to tai of 658. The original order of tbe stras seems to be preserved in this Ms. alone ; other Mas. usual!y follow the order of Anubhtisvarp&chrya in bis Sfirasvata~prakriy. Thus in two Mss. of the Deccan Gollege C o lle c t io n ( n o . 257 of 189598 and no. 210 of A. 1882-83) the total number of stras is near!y 890, includiDg some stras whieh occur twice and some vSrt ikas distinctly given b}' Anubhtisvarpachrya as such. We have in fact to d istiD gu ish clearly between the Srasvata-mlastrapatha and tbe Ssrasvataprakriystrapfha.

[ - 74

Special Featvres o f Slrasz'Gtc

of Pinirender plausible the inference that the Sras vata school, like the Ktantra, arose in response to a defi nite demand. This time the demand probably came from the Muhammedan rulers of India tvho felt it necessary to promote the study of Sanskrit, wers it only for the purpose of criticising works written in that language. Thus Gaisuddin Khilgi the pe&ceful and enlightened ruler of Mlva, Salemsliah (1555 to 1556) the emperor who ruled Dclhi during Humayuns \vanderings, and Jahangir, the Conqueror of the rvorldali these alike encouraged the study of the Srasvata grammar as being the one calculated to produc greatest results with the least effort. Indian princes like Udayasing of Udepur (1679 A. D.) also found it easier and less likelv to interfere vvith their usual enjoyments to studj this grammar. \Ve shall presently consider the special features to which the Srasvata owed its popularity amongst the aristocracy ; in the meanwhile it may be assumed as very probable that tbe Muhammedan rule of India is to be credited with liaving produced tbe demand whicli eventuallv led to the rise of the school of grammar with whicli we are at pre sent concerned.'
74. Special features of the Srasvata.These special fea tures are not very far to seek ; and prominent amongst them is brevity of treatment. When we remember that schools like those of Jainendra and Bopadeva, whose avowed object was to curtail and improve upon Pini as far as practicable, could not conveniently treat of their s u b je c t in less than 3000 and 1200 stras respectively ; or that the school which in current opinion was labelled the short schoolKtantrahas more than 1400 stras,
1 It is necessary to emphasise this in order to eounteract the tendency to look upon the Islam as a purely destruetive foree. The instance before us is on!y one out of many.

94

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

74 - ]

it was certainly au achievemcnt for the Srasvata gram mar to corapass the whole subject in 700 aphorisms only. More important than brevity is simplicity ; and in this respect also the Srasvata compares avourably vith its predecessors. The Srasvata uses pratyhras but dispenses with the puzzling its so that in its terminology the letters = 9r, ?, < T , T, for instance, are indicated by the formula ^ j This method has the advantage of pointing out at a glance the letters included in the application of a rule, rvhich Pinis = 5 rt[ fails to do, except to the initiate, The other technicalities ndopted by the Sarasvata are of tlie sitnplest kiud and are such that the meaning is evident from the word itself (trrur, tfvTr ete.), or is established by the coucensus of grammarians (rtr% ?T> rn?trT, HHTHrrnr, HH, smrrR, ^crvrT, etc.). Accordingly, the Srasvata very rarely goes out of its way to explain its Sajs and thus, without sacrificing siraplicity, gaius enormously in economy. The order followed is, of course, the natrai or the topical one. The language of the stras is easy, and in their interpretation we have not to follovv the guidance of any paribhhshs. No book 011 paribhshs has corae down to us in connection \vith this school. This has been made possible, oE course, by a studied avoidance of ali difficult and out-of-the-way forms, the object being to learn grammar not for its o\vn sake but as a medium for the study of literature. The Vedic irregularities and accents are left out, as also any detailed consideration of the Udis. Sometimes this process was carried too far and then later it was found necessary to insert vrtikas such as T * or *nrror again vimn: where it was discovered that even some of the commoner forms of words remained unnoticed.

t - 75

traditional Fcundcr o f Srasvata

75. Traditional founder of the Srasvata school.The person who is credited with the authorship of these virtikas to the Srasvata is an ascetic called Am'bhntisvarSpchrya. Tradition goes further and raakes liira the direct recipient of the revelation of the sanas from the Goddess Sarasvat, after \vhom the school gets its name. This does not seera to bc, however, the right view. We know that Anubhtisvarnpehrya gives in l,is Srasvata-prakriy some vrtikas, and this is incorupaible with his being the Strakra, as there was nothing to present him from turning his vrtikas into so raany stras. Secondlv, some of the rules which Anubhutisvarpchrya gives in his commentary are absent in other coiumentaries. Lastly, though this has hardly ruuch bearing 011 the questiou before us, Anubtisvavapchrva is tlie spiritual name of a man about \vhom we know nothing. On the coutrary Kshemendia at the end of his commentary on the Srasvata-prakriy has tlie col ophon Ttm m : thereby making Narendra the author of the Srasvata. Again, Amrilabhrati anolher commentaLor has the fol io wing :

Hfrnrnr r%%rT ernr favr 1 1 A granimarian Narendrchrya is also quoted by Vit.thalchrya in his rrakriykuumudprasda. Although as a result of these conflicling facts wc are not justilied in throwiug any doubt upon the historical existencc of Anubhntisvarpchrva, stili \ve must admit that he is no more than a name for us, and to set against hira we have anotherNarendra or Narendrchryawho must have written some original tvork on the Srasvata, no trace of which has, however, been hitherto discovered. We may observe in passing that such a confusion o names is more likely to occur in the case of modern \vriters, especially obscure vriters; aud such wc might

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

75 - ]

assume was the person who, in response to a felt demand, produced the Srasvatasutras, and thus made it possible even-'for the foreign rulers of India to g e tan insight into Sanskrit literature.
76- The Srasvata-prakrly o( A oubhtlsvanpchirja From

this obscurc and almost mythical personage, tvho could not have lived prior to the estahlishraent of Muhammedan rule in India, our next leap in the history of this school is to Anubatisvarpchrya the author of the Srasvataprakriy. He may have had one or two predecessors in his task. Anyhow when he took up the task, there was probably such a confusion in the order of the Srasvatasntras that he found it necessary to rearrange (^t" >$). the whole matter for logical presentation. Anubhiitisvarpachrya could not have lived earlier than 1250 and later than 1450, when Pujarja the earliest of his kuovvn comtnentators lived. When the stras once rcceived a stereo-typed form at the hands of Anubhtisvarnpa, the future historv of this school is mainly one of commcntaries and sul)-commentaries ; and the fact that vcry few o the commentatorsaud they are over fiftecn in the course of about 175 yearsmake any really original contribution, but confiue themselves merely to an explanation more or less accurate, only means that the grammar was meant for practical purposes only. Tlint there should have arisen so many conimentators at ali is to be explaincd 011 the ground that the several local Pandits felt it necessary, in vindication of their scholarship, to write for their patrons fresh commentaries rather than take up those already existing. shall now give short notics of these commentators one by one.
* 77. Commentators on the Srasvata-prakrlyS. We

belonged to the rmla araily of Malabar tvhich some time or other settled in Mlva. He

Pujarja.He

t i 77

Commentaton on Srasvcia-prakriy

97

gives his ncestry in the praasti at the end of his commentary, from which we learn tht he was a minister to Gaisudin Khiiji of Mlva (1469-1500). Pujarja seeins to have carried on the administration very efficiently coljecting round him a band of learned admirers, and indulging in numerous acts of charity and relief. He must have lived in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. He also wrote a woik on alakra called iiprabodha, and another larger work called Dhvanipradpa.' AmHtabhSratt. As above pointed out, this commentator mentions Narendranagari as an influencial writer on the Srasvata. Amritabhrati was a pupil o f. Amalasarasvati, and he bears the title PiaMSM ii). His commentary is called Subodhk. Unortunately ali the existing mss. of this commenta^y contain such a confusion as to the name of the author and of his guru, some stating the work to be that of Vivevarbdhi, pupil of Advayasarasvati, others that of Satyaprabodhabhattraka, pupil of Brahmasgaramuni, that it is hard to get at the truth. As the earliest known ms. of this work is dated Samvat 1554, the author must have lived about the last quarter of the fifteenth century. The work is said to have been composed at the holy place of Purushottama:
Kshemendra.We next take this commentator not be-

cause he comes chronologically next but because he, like Amritabhrati, speaks of Narendra. The only personai information we have of him is that he was the pupil of Krishrama and the son of Haribhatta or Haribhadra, a fact sufficient to indicate that he was other than the great Kshemendra of Kmr, who lived a full century before Bopadeva. Kshemendra speaks of some predecessors of his, and he is in turn quoted by Jaganntha, the
1 See Dr. Bhandarkare Keport for 1882-83, p. 12,
U f S k .G r .]

$8

Systms of Sanskrit Grammar

yy~]

author of Srapradpik, and unfavourably criticised by Bhatta Dhanevara who explicitly calls his own comraen* tary 3ri)vgQuM4if fr, As a ms. of this last work is dated Samvat 1653, it clearly follows that Kshemendra could not have lived later than the first quarter of the sisteenth century.
Chandrakrtl His commentary is indifferently called Subodhik or Dpik. From the praasti given at the end of this commentary we learn that the author was a Jain belonging to the Brihad-Gachchha of Nagpur, residing in a Jain Trtha called Kautika, and isth in succession from the founder of the Gachchha, Devasnri (Sarfi. 1174). He had a pupil called Harshakrti who wrote this commentary at first hand, and who himself produced a Dhtu ptha and a commentary for the Srasvata grammar. From the praasti of this latter work we learn that Chandrakrti was honoured by Shi Salem' ( a . d , 1545 to 1553) the emperor of Delhi. Chandrakrti thus belongs to the second quarter of the sixteenth century. Mdhava. The son of Khnu and pupil of rraga. He mentions several commentators before him. If the date of a ms. of his commentary (Sam. 1591) is correct, he must be placed earlier than Chandrakrti. VSsudevabhaa.-~He calls himself the pupil of Chadvara and gives2 the date of his commentary to be Sariivat 1634. The commentary is called Srasvataprasda. Madana.From the colophon at the end of the fMJUbUn we learn that Madana was the Mah-pradhna and Safighapati to Alpashi. His father was named Vhada
1 Compare aftnu n ifo ftPffo- 2 Compare

ftir amftRn nrfvn;' sJNrnrvftffc g: n smnftsii

geortHhTvr

[ - 77 Commentators on Srasvata-prakriyS

99

and he belonged to the Kharatara Gachchha. The commentary subsequent to the HftnreHJT seems to have been written by one of his pupils. From one of the mss. of the coramentary (Dec. Coll. collection, no. 13 of 1877-78) \ve gather that Alpashi or Alam was a king of Mlva, whose minister (amtya) vras known as Fadama. Vhada the father of Madana was a brother to this Padama, and vras, besides, himself a Saghevara or Saghapati. Our Madana accordingly must have inherited liis fathers oflice and title. We are not yet certain as to who this Alpashi, king of Mlva, was.> Probably he was merely some local chieftain. The earliest dated ms. of the comraentary belongs to the year 1574 A. d. Megharatna. He was a Jain belonging to the BrihatKharatara Gachchha, and the pupil of Vinayasundara. The commentary is called Srasvatavykaraadhudhik or Srasvatadpik. A ms. of this work is dated Samvat 1614 ( a . d. 1556), and this gives the lower limit for Megha ratna. the avowed object of correcting Kshemendra. As a consequence he comes after Kshemendra and before 1595 A. D., when one of the mss. of Dhanevaras commentary was copied. He has vrritten, as mentioned in the praasti of
1 Professor S. R. Bhandarkar in (Elliot and Dowson, iii. pp. his Report of a second tour in 157 and 208). If this Alpasearch of mss. in Rjputna khna be tbe same as our and Central India (1904-5 and AlpasEhi, Madana will have 1905-6) mentions a f^ctnvror on to be placed even before f c T B ^ gT ^ 'jtFT vrhich is PujarSja, which however does written in Samvat 1369. This not appear very likely. fuqpn*h was made during tbe 2 He must be distinguished from reignof AlpakhSna who has Bopadevas preceptor, whowas been identified vrith the bro~ also named Dhanevara. ther-in-Iaw of Sultn Alaudin

Dhanevara. He wrote his commentary with

ioo

Sysiems of Sanskrit Grammar

77 - ]

five stanzas at the end of the section of the commentary, a Tik on the Mahbhshya called Chintmai, a new grammar for beginners called PrakriySmai, and a commentary on a stotra from the Padmapura. and is therefore later than Dhanendra. We know nothing per sonai about Jaganntha. The commentary bears the name of Srapradpik.
Kssfastba. His commentary is called Srasvatabhshya, but is not so diffuse as the name would imply. The author is not communicative about himself and the only thing that can be definitely asserted of him is that h e must have lived prior t o 1610 A. d ., when a ms. (no. 292 of 1880-81) of his commentary was copied down at Barhanpur. Bbaa Oopsia.Is another commentator who can be similarly disposed of by noting that a ms. of his comraentary was copied in A . d . 1615. Jagannitha. This commentator also quotes

Sahajaklrtl. It is a relief to come from these shadowy figurs to one who is somewhat less chary of giving us information about himself. Sahajakriti was a Jain, a Vchanchraya and a pupil of Hemanandanagai of the Kharatara Gachchha. The com. is called Srasvataprakriyvrtika and was composed1 in A . D. 1623. Hasavl|ayagalThe contribution of this author is very slight, he having been apparently content to write a very diffuse com. called abdrthachandrik on the introductory verses of the SSrasvataprakriy. He was the pupil of Vijay3 nanda and flourished about Samvat 1708 = a . D . 1650.

[ 5 77

Commenlators on Srasvata-prakriy3

xo

Rimabbatta. This author's coin. is a crriosity ot so muh for its subject matter as for the manner of its compilation. The com. is called Vidvatprabodhin or Rrabhatt after the author. At the end of each section of the com. the author gives in one to five stanzas detftils about himseif, his family, his travels, and his literary works, from which we learn i. that the author iras an ndhra coming from the Telagaa country, or more definitely, from the reions around the Uragala hills, where ruled in his days a king called Pratparudra, in whose court was the great pandit called Uddana or Udayana; ii. that the author's father wos one Narasimha and his mother tt very pious lady called Kn. Having led a very happy life in his native piace and written various literary \vorksamong others, commentaries on the three Kvyas of the great Klidsathe author in the company of his wife, two sons called Lakshmldhara and JanSrdana, and daughters-in-law starts, at the advanced age of sevety-seven, on a pilgrimage to holy places. During the halts of the journey such leisure momonts as the author could command were employed iu writing the present commentarv. The main interest of the work lies in the record which is ept of the holy places visited on the way. At the conclusion of every section, the inci dents of the pilgrimage are versified and written down as a sort of a praasti, together \vith a stanza or tw in praise of the filial affection and dutifulness of the two sons. Although the diary is not as accurate and detailed as we would wish and the incidents of the journey by no means unusual yet the picture it gives of the real sooial life some three hundred years ago is by no means void o charm. It is to be regretted that none of the mss. accessible are complete. In addition to these names there could be mentioned a few otherssuch as RatnSkara, N5ryaahh 5 rati,

ios

Systems of Sanskrit Grammar

77 J

Kshemakara, Mahdhara, etc.but we have had already a Vearisome list of them, sufficient to indicate the course of developmept of the school since its origin in the thirteenth century. It is necessary, however, to mention a few more writers who wrote commentaries on the Srasvata independently of the Srasvataprakriy, although none estant is older than that work.
78 Commentaries on the Srasvata independently of the

Prakrlyl. The most famous of these, as having given rise to more than one sub-commentaries is the Siddhntachandrik by Ramchandrrama. As we possess little Infor mation about this author, we at once turn to his commentators. These are i. Lokeakara, son o Kshemakara and grandson of Rmkm. He wrote a com. on the Siddhntachandrik called Tattvadpik in the year i. e. a . d . 1683. And ii. Sadnanda who wrote a com. called Subodhin, which has been published at Benares. Rmachandrrama appears also to have written an abridgment of his own com. called Laghu-Siddhntachandrik. Another independent com. on the Srasvata stras is by Tarkatilakabhattchrya, the son of Dvrika or Dvarakdsa and the younger brother of Mohana Madhusdana. The author points out many interpolations in the works of Anubhtisvarupchrya. He wrote his work in 1614 A. D. in the reign of Jahangir.2 Siddhntaratna by Jinendu or Jinaratna is yet an other. We know nothing about it or its author. The com. is very short and probably very modern. One more extensive work on the Srasvata remains to be mentioned. It was undertaken by a pupil of Bha1 With the words 2

[ - 79

T rea tin s Acce$sory to Sreuvata

103

ttoji Dksbita, Raghuntha by name. It is called Laghubhshya and aspires to treat of tbe various grammatical topics aftfir the manner of Patajal.'. Raghuntha was a Ngara, the son of Vinyaka, and belongs, as the pupil of Bhattoji to the middle of the seventeenth century.
79. Treatises accessory to the Srasvata. Of acC6SS0ry treatises in connection with the Srasvata there are very few. There are no works on Udis or Paribhshs. A Dhtuptha with a com. on it called Taragi was composed, as stated above, by Harshakrti, pupil of Chan* drakrti. His date, therefore, is cir. i 56o A. D. A writer called Jnatilaka has put together ali the examples of &dj and yuiit^ atfixes based on the Srasvata chapters dealing with them. A ms. of this work is dated Samvat 1704. Another writer named Mdhava has attempted a derivation of words according to the Srasvata. His date is probably* 1680; and these are ali, or at any rte, ali worth noticing.

As the Srasvata was meant to be the shortest and the easiest manual of Sanskrit grammar, it would seem that no further abridgraents of it were called for. The facts are otherwise. Besides the Laghusiddhntachandrik above noticed, an author called Kalyasarasvati has produced ffratrunr a small work called Laghusrasvata. He lived probably towards the close of the i8th century.
80. General revlew of the blatory of the Srasvata school.

Taking now a general review of the history of this school it will be perceived that the Srasvata like the Ktantra, sprang up in response to the felt need of the time, and having once attained a fixity of form, the work continued to be studied in ali parts of Northern India by the
3 Compare astm i( ? v )g*n|?*TRnt PRUfVt (?) ifcll

104

S/stetns of Sanskrit Grammar

$ 8o - j

help of the namerou coramentaries which came into eristence simttaneously and on ali sides. Each commentaty may be looked upon as having centered within itself the literary longings of the country around its place of nativity. And in later times there were made no attempts to improve or supplement the Srasvata, simply because the students of the Srasvata did not wish to be erudite grammarians, considering grammar only as a means to an end. Only one such attempt by a pupil of Bhattoji has come down to u s ; but by that time the Kumuds and the abridgments of Varadarja and others had fairly ousted the Srasvata from the field. It is an interesting coincidence that when the British rulers of India were first actuated by desire to acquaint themselves more thoroughly with the literature and the ancient traditions of their subjects through the medium of Sanskrit, one of the earliest and the easiest of anglosanskrit grammars that was vrritten was Wilkins, the basis for which was just this same Srasvata. At present the school has very little following. Its study is mainly confined to the provinces of Behar and Benares.

The School of Bopadeva

is a comparatively recent school of grammarians. Consequently there is no . tradition of divine revelation attaching to the Mugdhabodha, the chief text-book of the school, but it is accepted as the work of a real human author called Bopadeva.
82. The date of Bopadeva. Bopadeva was the son of a 81. The scbool of Bopadeva This

physician named Keava and his teachers name was Dhanea. Bopadevas birth-place is said to have been somewhere near the modern Daulatabad in the Mahratta country, then ruled by the Ydavas of Devagiri. Bopa deva is quoted by Mallintha (cir. 1350) in his commen-

f - 83

Bopadeva's Mugdhabodha

105

tary on the Kumra, and he is known to have been the protege of Hemdri, who was a minister (sfbEVOTtffrv) to Mahdeva the Vdava king o Devagiri (1260-1271 A. D.), and to his successor Rmadeva. Bopadeva's father as well as teacher lived at a place called Srtha situated on the banks of the Varad. He was thus a native of the Berars.2 Although born of Varidya patents he bears the surname Gosvmi or high priest. Bopadeva was a scholar of great renown and a voluminous writer. Besides the Mugdhabodha, Kavikalpadruma, and its commentary the KmadhenuBopadeva has written the Muktphala and Harililvivaraa (both dealing witli the Bhgavatapura), a medical \vork called Stalok, and a treatise on Dharmastra.3
83. The object of Bopadevas Mugdhabodha. We have seen how various attempts were made quite early to improve upon Pinis grammar by making his rules more terse and accurate. Where these attempts were made in the way of vrtikas or commentaries, they increased the student's difficulties rather than simplified them. And where attempts were made to establish a new school independently of Paini, the founders were in most cases the followers of some unorthodox church, so that the need of a fresh manual ( as distinguished from a mere recast of old rules and terms) remained as pressing as ever.
1 Compare rgg^Tll fSj5wrIIfrom tho gvirrqt, and 1 # h r 5 TWH*yiWIVT fsr^csrit 1 f t f v r

the Bhsgavata cau be provod from various arguments : amongst others the followicg quotation (VrljtViJIDrnf fitratfit 1 efluTuvntf 3

2
3

uVSfcmtfrgaft 1 1 from the gftiftg r n w . Dr. Bbandarkar8 Early Ilistory of the Deccan, p. 89.
T h at Bopadeva did not w rito

) from the (p. 63) of faj^1$) edited (1909) by l{ags~ chsrya, who tries to prove its
genuineness.

i4 [ Sk. Gr. ] '

106

$ystems of-Sanskrit Grammar

| 63 ]

It was at such a juncture that Bopadeva wrote his Mugdhabodha. His object therein was simplicity coupled with brevity.. The first he attained by follouring the natrai mode of presentation such as is found in the Ktantra. For the second, the adopted Pinis pratyhra-sntrasmaking in them the changes necessary for their adoption to his own system. He omits ali notics of accents, and the Vedic peculiarites are dismissed in one (the last) stra arrfSr, corresponding to Pinis oft-repeated Another feature which we notice in this grammar for the first time is its religious element. In the choicc of examples illustrating his rules Bopadeva has taken care to use wherever possible the names of Hari Hara, and other gods.1 Bopadeva is here equally partial to Hari, Hara, or Rma ; but later writers have outdone him in this respect. Even the technical terms of some of these modern grammarians are the names of Krisha, Rdh, iva, Durg, etc. We shall have occasion to revert to these later. Bopadevas technical terms often deviate from Pi nis.2 Owing to the absence of ali the its of the Pinya system and a slightly varied arrangeraent of letters, the pralyhras or rather the samhras of Bopadeva are quite puzzling to a student of P ini; and since ali ancient ivriters and commentators have followed the Painya grammar in their writings, this extreme divergence from his system prevented the Mugdabodha from being studied in ali parts of India, which its clear and logical method entitled it to be.
1 ThuB is illustrated by instance of tto ism : g n ft, the n& gynrrsvimm option&l forms tt, etc. and so on everywhre. are shown by 2 For csumplc, ij for i f for ftn * 1m* Vfoa'ff ; for fw for fWisiN an etc.

[ - 84
84.

Bopadeva's School: Later History

xoy

Later Matory of Bopadevas school.-From what is said

just now we are not to conclude that the Mugdhabodha was never widely popular. In. the two centuries preced* ing the rise of the Mahratta power and the revival o Pi ni it enjoyed a wide currency as well in the Iand of its origin as elsewhere. This is clear from the statements of Bhattoji-dkshita in the abdakaustubha and in the Manoram. In the latter he says trrrtrr He is also at great pains to refute the opinions of the author of the Mugdhabodha, which must have dominated the literary worid before the advent of Bhattoji. It was only in the seventcenth century that like other non-Pinya systems of grammar this school had to take refuge in a country which was farthest removed from Mahratta influence, that is, Bengal, or rather the neighbourhood of Nadia cn both the sides of the Ganges, where it continues to be assiduously studied to the present day. During the few centuries of its existence the Mug dhabodha has produced quite a bewildering number of digests and commentaries. The most celebrated of the commentaries is that of Rmatarkavgla, a profound logician and an adept in the grammars of other schools (qn%r<T n f % n a i 4 < s rr ' )> upon whose systems he frequently draws to supply errors or omissions in the Mugdha bodha. He is quoted by Durgdsa (1639 A. D.) who wrote a commentary on the Kavikalpadruma. Durgdsa also quotes Rmnanda, Devdsa, and Kvra and his predecessors, while he is in his turn quoted by Vidyvgia, Bholntha, and Rmabhadranyylakra.

Io8

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

84-]

A few more names are given by Aufrecht, but they need not detain us here. Of modern commentaries on the Mugdhabodha there is no end. Most of these are produced in Bfengal.
85. Supplementa and accessory treatises of the Mugdhabodha.

As the aim of the Mugdhabodha was brevity, it was inevitable that it should have omitted several obscure rules. Accordingly we find three attempts made one after another to supply the defects : by Nandakiorabhatta, by Kvara, and by Rmatarkavga. The first of these gives his dateiHHHiM+loJiHrfilrt, that is, A. D. 1398. He was therefore a very early vvriter. Of other modern attempts we need not speak anything. As to accessory treatises Bopadeva himself left none, except the Kavikalpadruma, which is list of roots arranged accordingly to their endings, and a commentary on the same called Kmadhenu, the chief importance of which for us lies in its numerous quotations. Attempts more or less successful have been since made to give to this school other accessory treatises. Rmachandravidybhnsha (aka 1610) wrote a Paribhshvritti. Rma tarkavga put together an alphabetically arranged Udikoa. And there are other minor works attributed, probably by mistake, to Bopadeva himself.

The Jaumara School

86. The Jaumara school of Kramadivara.The name by which this school is popularly known is a misnomer. It comes from Jumaranand the most celebrated writer of the school, though we have reason to think that he lived some time after its founder. This was Kramadivara styled I i f i - 5 ^ N o t h i n g is known of Kramadvaras parentage and nativity. His work is called Safikshiptasra, indicating by it that it was an epitome or an abridgment of some larger grammar; and as it could be the

[ - 88

The Jaumara School

109

abridgment of no other grammar than Pinis, it is pos. sible that this was the first of its kind, prior to the Prakriy- and Siddhnta-kaumuds. Aufrecht in fact makes the school even anterior to Bopadeva, though Coiebrooke places it immediately after.
87. Special features of the Jaumara Kraraadvara seems

to have composed his grammar on the modei of Bhartriharis Mahbhshya-dpik, and he has taker most of his illustrations from the Bhattikvya. The \vork meant as an epitome of the Ashtdhyy is about three-fourths as large as that work. The only changes effected by Kramadvara were confined to the rejection of a few superfluous or difficult rules of Pini and the adoption of a different mode of arrangement. The work is divided into seven pdas,1 the eighth dealing with Prkrit being added later. In the mode of systematising the grmmatical material, as also in accuracy and method, the grammars of Bopadeva and others certainly compare favourably with this grammar, which may be due to its being perhaps the first of its kind. Stili it is not altogether wanting in correct reasoning, and the erudition displayed by Kraraadvara is far in advance of that of popular grammarians. 88. Commentaries on the Jaumara. The Sakshiptasra as it left the hands of Kraraadvara must have been either incomplete or deficient, and it has undergone a more or less thorough revision at the hands of Jumaranand who is styled in the mss. HSTTPSTrRrrrsr. Detractors of the school make much fun of the name Jumaranand, which they believe belongs to a man of the weaver caste. Jumaranands vritti is known as Rasavat and in consequence the school itself bore the name of Rsavata under which
1 . Ntttnely, rffcj,

W IW , ***,

110

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

88 - ]

title it is quoted by Bharata the commentator on the Bhattikvya. Jumarnandis seems to have been the earliest exposition of this system. He has also revised for this school the Piniya Dhtuptha.1 Next to Rasavat, GoyTchandras commentary deserves a brief menti on. Goychandra styles himself alfararEfai, which may be either a patronymic or some religious or political title the significance of which is lost to us.2 The best part of Goychandras commentary is that on the fifth or the Kraka pda, which along with its able and learned gloss by Abhirmavidylakra is studied even by the students of other schools for the sake of a correct and complete understanding of syntax. Besides this commentary Goychandra has also written a work on the Udis, and a list of some 127 paribhshs. Goychandras commentary is further commented upon by Nyyapachnana, son of Vidyvinoda, a ms. of which is dated Saka 1634 ;b y Keavadeva styled Tarkapachnanabhattchrya ;3 by Chandraekharavidylakra ; by Vamvdana, Harirma, and many others. Independently of Goy!chandras gloss there do not seem to be in existence any notable commentaries on the Jaumara grammar. Colebrooke mentions only one by Goplachakra vrti.
89. Present status of the Jaumara school. *Next to the Kt antra this grammar has the widest circulation at present in Western Bengal, where it disputs with Mugdhabodha the palm for supremacy. The literary activity*of the schoolsuch as it isis not yet over. 1 Compare ms. no. 196 of Notics, 3 The commentary is callednofm
second aeries, vol. i.. gtfijmgj and regarding it the
author eays ttnr-

Ezplained asaimVHT*

trrr mgfhnti Ape ffenSMr mBr i

njvn jfair g t shvmt ftrvortin

C- I 9*

The Saupadma School

The Saupadma School

originator of this school is a Maithila Brabman naraed Padraa* nbhadatta, the son of Dijraodaradatta and grandson of rdatta. This Padmanbhadatta is to be distinguished from another writer of the same name, the son of Gaevara and grandson of Silpati, who wrote for the school a work called Prishodardivritti, vrhich ivas vrritten, accord* * * ing to the authors own statement, in Saka 1297 (A. D. 1375). If this date be correct1 it follows that the other Padmanbhadatta, the founder of the Saupadma school, was either a contemporary or lived very shortly after Ujjvaladatta, whom he raentions as one of hisauthorities2 in his lexicon called Bhriprayoga. His being placed in the last quarter of the fourteenth century does not, at any rate, conflict with any other hitherto ascertained facts.
90. 91. Speclal features of the Saupadma.Regarding the work of Padmanbhadatta it is, as he himself states, based upon Pini, some of whose stras and technical terms as also his pratyhras he has retained verbatim. He has, of course, remodelled4 a greater part of Pini's rules and arranged them in a somewhat more methodical form, adding a short explanation of his own after each stra.4 i s
1 A ms. of the work is no. 228 2Compare frTOT lf q rr of Notics, second series, * vol. i. The date looks rather gr nStiTl%Q gg sustiem us from the fact that N in the beginning of the same 3 Thus Pinis h% IT T work the author has attempted is changed into3*f^ffaT*$rr to trace his accestry from HHVg: i Vararuchi, one of the nine 4 The work consists of five chapgems in the court of vikramters dealing with i. ff and Sditya. Necdless to say that 5ii. gfTCgf and dedension; the attempted geneology is a iii. ansgra; iv. and g omfr failure. suffixes | and v.

The Saupadma school of Padmaribhadatta The

112

Systcms o f Sanskrit Grammar

91 - ]

treatment of Pinithe fact of his having retained most of the Pinya terminologyhas given the Saupadma an advantage over Bopadeva. Students of the Saupadma have not in their later studies to face the inconvenient necessity of unlearning their own technicalities in orderto read the various commentaries and scholia (written to elucidate poems and works of science), most of which use Pinis terminology.
92. Commentaries on the Saupadma. Padmanbha, the founder of the school, has himself written a commentary on his grammar, called the Supadmapajik. Several later commentaries are mentioned by Colebrooke, such as those of Kandarpasiddhnta, Kvara, Srdhara-chakravarti, Rmachandra, etc. The best of the lot is Vishumiras Supadma-makaranda iu twenty sections called drops or bindus.' 93. Treatises accessory to the Saupadma.Of accessory

treatises to the Saupadma there is also a great number. Works on the Udis, Dhtus, and Paribhshs were written by the founder himself. At the conclusion of the last work, Paribhshvntti, the author has given an up-to-date account of his literary activity, which is of considerable value.1 Regarding his work on the Udis (Udivntti) it follows a peculiar pln of arrangement. The treatise is divided into two chapters, the first containing the suffixes that end in a vowel, and the second those in consonants. They are ali arranged alphabetically. The stras are Padmanbhas own composition, and in his explanations he usually follows Ujjvaladatta. The paribhshs of the Saupadma school are some of them word for word Pini's, while others are modelled on that basis. The Dhtuptha follows Pinis division into arrlt etc, and has a com. on it called
1 See India Office Cat&logue, Part ii, Ms. no. 890.

[-96

Later Sectarian Schools

113

Dhtuniraya. A Gaaptha to the Saupadma has been supplied by Kvara and a com. on it by Ramknta. There are also minor works on vraro and attaching to the school, and a supplement has also later been tacked on to it.
94. Present status ot tbe Saupadma At present the in fluence of the school is limited to parts of central Bengal that is, to Jessore, Khulna and Bharatpur in the Twentyfour Paraganas.

Later Sectarian Schools

95. Later Sectarian Scbools.We now come to a class of grammarians who have carried to extremes the tendency, already present, as we saw, in Bopadeva, to make grammar the vehicle of religion; and prominent amongst these are the Vaishava grammars called Harinmmrita. 96. Harln9m3mrita There are two works going by this name. The one by Rpagosvmin, the companion and disciple of Chaitanya, (1484-1527) and the author of several other Vaishava works, is perhaps the older of the two. The peculiarity of this work is the employment of various names of Krisha and Rdh, and of their acts, not simply by way of illustration but as actual technical terms. Thus the vowels of the pratyhra are each designated by the different incarnations of Vishu, the theory being

tR# it itet (?) IsreSpr 1 > r

f*-

> '

As is to be expected, beyond the introduction of this sectarian element no other improvement on the existing texts of grammar is here to be met with. The whole subject is presented to us in a dull uninteresting manner. Ii l Sk. Gr. ]

Ii4

ystets of Samkrit Grammar

96 *]

JvagosVSmin's HarinSmrarita varis only slightly frdm the above. A third Vaishava grammar called Chaitanymrita is likewise mentiofled by Colebrooke.1 Most of these grammars were intended to appeal to a very small community. There are consequently no commCntaries or siipplements handed down in connection with them. The few that exist do tiot call for any speci al mention. These grammars are at present in use among the Vaishavas of Bengal.
97 . PrabodMprtkSa.There are repofted to have been in existence similar sectarian works of the Saiva or Skta schools, of which the Prabodhapraka is one It is uncertain and immaterical as to whether the Vaishavas or the Saivas are to be credited with the invention of this ingenious sectarian device. We may suppose that the beginning having been once made by Bopadeva, who was a little remained but to stretch the thing stili further.

The author of the Prabodhapraka is Blarmapachnana, probably a Brahman by caste, about whose time and place no information has come down to us. In his works he designated the vowels by iva, so that we read in his work of gfHrgr3^ f u ^, RisfirddlRtfm i , etc. Here is one of his stras jfrrrvr, which is explained httj? R A Dhtupraka is also attributcd to this author. It is clear that works Whlch carry things to such an extreme can claim the only merit of doggedly carrying an idea through. It may therefore be excused if no further at tempt is made to sketch out the history of such schools, for the simple reason that they have no history.
1 M U efelian eO flt E a s a ? * , v o l . i i . p* 1 8 .

 - 9$

Lesser ikam ah and School-ooks

115

Laaaer Mannai and Seheol-book*

98. Lesser Manuals and School-booka. Thfe age of the

really original grammarians vras long over. It vras succeeded by that of able commentators and critics which continued as long as there was the necessity of understanding and correctly interpreting u great author. When even this became a difficult task, there vas nothing to be done but the vvriting of small and smaller manuals adapted to the comprehension of the lay understanding. We have seen how, in most of the schools of gram marians worthy of the name, the declining age of each vritnessed a host of such manuals aud manuals of manuaU. Even this, it would appear, was not enough. Out of the debris of these schools there grew up a spirit of eclecticisra, and novr we meet vrith gramraatical handbooks vrhich depend upon no system, and were vrritten merely for a select circle of the uninitiated. These mushroom crops disappeared as fast as they were produced. They vrere not vrritten for posterity. Before vre close this essay we sliall take up a fevr typical works of this class. 1. PrabodhachandrikA work not more than a hundred and fifty years old, being an elementary gram mar treating in anushtubh stanzas of the leading topics of grammar, the illustrative examples being connected vrith the names of Rma. The author is supposed to be Vijjala-bhpati, the son of one Vikrama and Chandrvat and belonging to the Chauha race ruling at Patna. He vrrote it for the benefit of his son Hirdhara. A commentary called Subodhinl is vrritten upon it by Goplagiri doubtless a protege of the prince. 2, Bhoja-vydkaraa by Vinayasundara^r^ ritte n for the benefit of a king Bhoja, son of Bhramalla. This

n6

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

98-99]

work, like the above, is metrical in form, folloving the usual topical arrangement. 3. Bhvasimhaprakriy by Bhatta-inyaka This is another of what we may call royal grammars. It was written for the edification of Bhvasimha the eldest son of a local prince who is styled ^d^T is; (Lord of the Earth). 4. Dipavykaraa by ChidrpramaThe author calls himself <Tr*T?HtRnrwi. The work is independent, of the symbolical and intricate terminology of the older schools, giving short rules in an easy form adapted to the capacities of juvenile students. Krikvali by Nryaa surnamed BhattchryachakravartiThis elementary grammar was meant originally for the authors son, who in this case has made a grateful return by writing a commentary on the same. 6. Blvabodha by NarahariThis is the last of these little manualseach typical of a host of others that we mention. The work is meant to remove the obstacles in the way of students learning the five mahkvyas, arising from the circumstance of their not having learnt grammar before. The author assures us that with the help of his work r it.rrf nnfH. In it words and their forms are taken up in the order in which they are required for the study of the Kvyas in the order in which they are usually studied.
99. Concluslon We might mention a few more works of a similar kind, bringing the record down to quite recent times, but it would be hardly necessary. These works can by no device be grouped under one school. They merely represent a tendency and as such they do not fall within the province of our essay. Here then we might suppose our account of the different existing systems of Sanskrit grammar to have at last attained its natrai termination.
5.

App. i. ]

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

117

HPPENDIX I.
( See note 2 on pag: 60 ) 1 1 1 1

3* Ri hh: 1 3* 1 h < = ra r s ^trh; i i ^ hh 1 3 ^iflTIH I 55i I I HHVRHT II ^rpogH rf^m : s!3rw n : 1 srrg i^htptpt i aitift 3WFfttrat: I 'HFHHT I ^TrH kdfPJH^HT II ^ qj?TiP I fafTV rTTHPT I fa^TH mSS^HP I ftTfhlM' ftRHTHIH I ^m: R O T S II SnrHt

I 3TTH?Ht ST FC M || TSrr^JJtTT . HfHf# t H II HfHf# WHHT I R|fT 3P S JT jf PHlHf ^ I rTit RfRf ^flTt: [ ] I I ?iTnHn'FRHT II H T U iIhT H II f^SrH *TFTFH II ^gTl I ^Ftfat 1s swr{|ftqT: v'THRHA'fl4 if^fTHft^iqej|fftiT fs! q - R ^ pj^ Hi^r3sr?Fn 'jthKt: i HfHsn^^snon: 1 ?d tR HPnorr: I ^fPT'Ppfa'SfHr: HRp^THHHST^RT: Ti^d^uSdl^H' sr^IH T flWr: 1 *PTO ?T*itw TT: I HmrHT: HRli: l 3TH H M T THI: I r^r sn^r: rPTd: II
3T sr ;srm f =1# <r^t p - f?r Riht Rrer:

1* HlftT^H H I^Hrt^f^TlRRF^T Wl^THT HffrT I ^f^orffo?f 1srfm h flfcr 1 ?fa gr^THi 1 1 =&$: 1Rmflret sftf: 1R ri^ f: p ; 1 1 ? i^ irr : 1Ar^k T^IrT: I H H T R : VRr:II^TlHIfdTf^f f t ^ d l f t l ^ I I 3T H H *T T f^sp^T Hignif^F rgHifWr^fW 1 1

1 1rfit ^rarenftsnfli mtm# u

n8

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

[ App. ii, *

HPPENDIX Ii.
( See no te t on paffe 4S ) ti a w gncmf l c f t t ii 3* *nr: 1 3* 1
3m T**

i>

%5

fpsn^ft svfnT Tufotf rlMllRl'bM^ I 3TIW^W H 3[5 HTni ft7 H ?7 Sfcmfo f| t o t o p t : 1 1x 1 1 HW*T Tfbrmi srqif K[ 3Tf^T I HHHH ^ II 3 II ^gr s i q% ! i w ^ Hf^rsRFto ^nfi 1 1 1 1
hp t arot

Hiihivi i f | # r gwr^*rts 1 1h 1 1 T O ##: 1 f^pigim <n*ir 1 1^ 1 1 gtoW rH *fatW?T ftpHH II II

^ 5f
7& M

3[ HRT^ faj Hf^PTTH HH7lf^ r I T II II am*7 i t o T lfor: f^RHs 1 1 )f^d^ HHf^HTTHHn II t II T H t f^PW IlUtfrudffiM*; I
frfflw<iq w riftr n ff * w k wr
ii

- App. il. ]

Sjstcnis o f Sanskrit Gramthar

5 r r m r : i

aT^THiHuvr^

?F5r t w i r
H f v r ^

frfftkfrdr II i 1 |f

an^ n f i M ^ n i ifrElig+tlt ^ grft: I) 'ik II ht: i

^T*rJHhr( 1 ) 5 f q r ^ t t .

FT 1 % HtHHfi fSP P )^ II 15 II

HT5 vp?r W *fc<SI<W : II 'ir ||

*N iq qft w vF i <ramqt t ( ! )fafa: i

Hfft Hiy+Ilf^
TVrCHTrHT ff+l^rkPr H TH

II hk, II
I

%IM<tVTf^TH A H l <| t uIH ( ? ) II 1 t< II

3H^ H 5 ^ r e W htt# arron^T: # P R [ 1 #

h?t

Hpppfttft: < v * ii *m: l

ii

^hn^rki^i-Hnpu ii v

uil<pr:

^ ^ kTMFfR ftM HHl

HfSFr^H^PRTi H I% ^flHM% i WPTt H O T W ( ? ) f ^ R ^ 5 R # II ke ||

^ u ^ihrHnf e u R r ^ 1

I ||

lHt H M k h P ^ f W g ( ? )f^PT|rF[ || ^ IHTR^h flf: HTIH I M ^ ln ir l^ M F 'T ^ R 'J l f o f t : II k k || qqu<<ii^ qjwf|5i q^ 3 ynitl^ i

riMTft#rT snpnRnTr^Ttf^rrft f | ii k h <pf

Kmfo

qfA trHP^jft*. #

h^i i
*tf?f ^ H > ii k* u

t^ r

12O

Systcms o f Sanskrit Grammar Hpsr:

[ App. ii.

1 1 x h ii

^H rr% PlHdl^J^d: II
H T H^Tt blHHHl
SRTR[H I

pfcPH: RsrBfrT l) V pH h W^rHt'M|KHT%H II ^ II

'T5<Tt MT^PHHTfeT ^TCt WAAil|H || V |i

f^rmp i
II
h ii

I ITH ^ M K M N U ^ a < T rn*< uu^ft: W H II

* A t thiB place a fe w unimportant stanzas are om itted .

GENERAL INDEX
N. B. Roferenccs aro to page and liue, or to page and footnoto(n), unless where preceded by vvhich inrlicates section. The arraiigement is according to the TCnglish alphabefc, the diacritical mrks being ignored. A Abha) achandras recast of (Skatyana-) Prnkrysagraha72T2; ita mture 72*17ff; the date of the antbor 72T4ff. Abhayanaiidin,8version of the Jainemra G5 14; laler than that of Somadeva 65*23 ; his date 07-2 ; his version followed by the Pafichavastu 07T5. Abbimanyu of Kmr Testeros the corrupt text of the Mahbhlshya 83*27. Abhinava-katayana, scf Sakatyuna (Jaina). Ahhirmavidylakra? 8 vritti on the Kraka-pada of GojTchandras commentiivy 110*11. Acceasory treatises to Pinis grammar 1(>; their later history 85 ;to Chndra giammar 45 ; to ak*,iyjlua grammar 54; to Ilemachandras grammar 59 ; to the Ktantra 70 ;to the Srasvata 79;toMtigohabodhu 85 ;to the Saupndma 93. Adhikra-stras, how indieatcd by Pini 24-n2. Adhytma-Emyana, com. on, hy Nge4ti 47 21 ; 49*0. Advayasara8vati 07*18. Agar vara 79*21. Agnikumra, elder brothcr of llnradatta 39*12. Agni4arrna, alias of I4varakmha _ 64*n4t Agrayaa mentioned in Nirnkta _ 8*nl. Agryana mentioned in Nirnkta 8*nl. Aindra school, supplanled by P ini 10*15 ; amongst its fcllowera Ktyyana (Vararuchi), Vyi and Indradatta 10*16; its acoonnt by Hiuen Tsang and Tr16 [Sk. Gr.] ntha 10*17 ; agrecing with K tantra and perha ,> s idunical with it 10*20, 12*i, 84*14 ; revea .ed by Krtt;keya 10*22; anulogies in tho Pitirikhyas 11*12 ; its ter mi 4ogy in the Tolakappiyam 11*8; BurneJPs conclusion about it ll*9ff ; post-PiuTya in date and pre-PninIya in substance 11-32. Aindra School of grammarians, by Dr. Buruell 3*nl ; 5*n2 ; 11 r11. Aitihsikub mentioned in the Nirukta 8-nl. Ajajupla successor of Kumrapla 75* 11. Ajitaseiichrya author of Maipraktfik, com. on tli) ChintS_ mi 72*7. jurik 67*5. Akalakadcva 63*n4. Alaudin, Sultn 99* 1G . Alherunl 91 *J 6. A h* xamkr 15*35 ; 16*34 ; Pini lived before his invasion 17*2 ; razed Sangala to gronnd 17*15 ; 18*8. Alpakhna or Sultn Alaudin 99*nl. Alpashi or Alm, patron and master of Madana 98*29ff ; probahly a local ehieftain from Mlva 99*12 ; not the same ns Sultn Alaudin 99*nl. Amalasarasvati teacher of Amritabhrati 97.12. Arnara quoted by name in Bopadevas Mngdhabodha 10*n3. Amarachandras Sydisamuchehay a 80*8ff. Amarakosha, com. on , lll*n2 ; Ly Kshrasvmin 52*7. Amoghavarsha I ( Rshtrakta ), patron of (Ja in a ) katyana 69*14,69*n2. Amoghavntti 64*n4 ; written by

122

Sjystem$ o f Sanskrit Grammar

Art of w ritin g, \vhcn introduced 4*26 ; presupposed by primitive _ _ P rti4 kh yas 4*30. rya-rutuklrti auth or ( ? ) of the Paehavastu 67*21ff. rvavaira ouoted by ( J a i n a ) ka ty a n a 70-n5A sa j a k a a niekname for Ch nd ra g ra m m ar 60*4. A s h t d h y y l of P ini 7*2 ;*9*7 ; 9*9 : 32*n2 ; 12*17; oldcs1 ; surviving \voik in s tia btyle 13*2 ; 18*26 ; why so called 19*20; programm of, pp. 2 0 -2 ! , and 22*nl ; arnuig em ent of stras w ithin it, 24*21ff, 24*n3 ; treatises accos,;ory to it 16 ; sometimes its teaching contrary to th a t of tho U n d is tru s 26*14, 26*i:2 ; 27*17 ; 29*20 ; recastR of 29, 57*2 ;c o m . on it by Blmtteji 47*12 ; com on it by A rm a m b ha tta 50*24 ; 5 6 1 0 ; meiiiious 6 k a f a y a n a 68*26 ; 109*101 ; see also Pini. A s ia tic Soc-ety o f Bengal, Journal o f , 33* n l . A s sy n a u s not unknow n to Indians before Alexanders invasion 15*32; mentioned aR m erccnary figlders by I itii 17*23; blotted out as a political povvcr in 538 P.O., 17*27 : 18*9. Asuras, see Assyrians. A u d u m b a ry a a m entioned in the N iru kta 8*nf. A ufu'oht 42*n2; 45*n3 ; his edition of U n d iv ritti 54*11 ; 68*nl ; 108*1 109*3. A up a m an ya va m entioned in the N irukta 8 * n l. Auravbha mentioned in th e N irukta 8*nl. A utthsanika title o f GoyTehandra 110*6, 110 *d 2. A uv ata 42*9ff. Avachri or A vach r ik on Hema_ c h an d ra s B h a d v t t i 78*9. va4yaka-stra 73*nl.

katya n a him self 69*13; its ate 69*16, 69*n2,72*nl ; Ny5sa on by P ra b h cb a n d i c h ry a 72*2 ; Yukhav<irim; s C ld rt mai based , upon ^ 72*4; refe rs to various Bvctm bara works 73*n l ;. drawn upon f ree ly by H e m ac han dra 76*13, 70*nl ; 76*n2. A m r i ta b h r a t i s com , Bubodhik, on S ra sv a t t-prakriy mentions N a ren d ra as the author of Srusvata 95*2(Jff, 97*11 ; quntes Viinalasarasvati 4 4-nl ; per, onl dotails about h :m 97*12ff ; his date 97*22. A m v i ta s r t ' by V rvanea, a com. on the lMakriynkaunni.iT 46*nl. A m rita taragi l scc Knhlratard gin. Anahillapattakn 74*18. A na nd ap la of Ktrur 91*15 ; his dato 9l*18. A ncient Indian L ite ratu re, H isiory o f f b}' Max MUll< r, 4*nl : 4*n3; 9-nl ; 12*nl ; U m l . A n d h ra 82*n3 ; 101*8. A n n a m b h a t t a H Mitkshar on tho A s h t d h y y l 5 0 2 4 . A nuhandh as o f P in i 23*20 ; the 8ystem already know n before Pini 23*nl ; of the i hatiiptha same as thoso of tjie ARhtdh y a y 25*18 ; of U d i s tras same as P i n i s 26*10; of Vjasaneyi P r ti k h y a same as those o f P ini 29*n2. A nu bh l i svar p ch a rv a s !S ra sva t aprakriy 92*n l, 76 ; the tradi tional founder of Srasvata 95*3 ; his vrtik as 95*9 ; bis date 96*15f: ; intorpoJations in his com. 102*25, lQ2*nl. Aparjita pre ceptor of H a r a d a P a 39*13. Apitali, fo u n d e r of a gramm atieal school, and quoted by Pini 9*23, 12*n2 ; his rule quoted by the K4ik 9*24, 9*n3, 10.nl ; 37*8 ; K a i y y a t a quotes from his gramm ar 10*4, 10*u2 ; quoted by name in B opa d eva s Mugdhabodha 10*7, 10*n3. ra yaka, T a ittirly a, 4*n2. Arctio H om e in t h e Vedas, 3*n2.

B
Bahadui Shah 78*27. Ihiiji 35*nl ; 41*19. Blabodhin by B h a tta Ja g a d d h ara 9 M 2 , w ith U g r a b h t i s Nyttsu

General Index

1*3

on the same 91,14. B hitta-virivakas BhvasiihhaBlamanoram an abridgmfnt of PrakriyJt 116.3. the Pramthamanoram p< rhaps B1. 4tik vya quoted by Haradatta by ihe same author 47.8. 39 .t > 3 ; 77.16 ; 109.9 ; com. on BiTambhattT, a com. on the Vyavnb3r Bharata 110.2. hrakrua of the Mitksbar, by Bhattoji Dkshita 9.n2 ; difetinguiVaidyantha, uscrihed to bis shen botveen the two authors patronfsa 50.10. of the Ksik 36.4, 36.nt ; acBRLirmapachiinnas Prauodl a know!cdges indei todnesa to the raksa 114.191? ; his Dhtupr.Bpamull 45.n l ; bis modei k&t 114.20. for Siddlihta-ksMimud the PraBla stri, editor of the K4ik krh~kaumud of Rmuchandra 36.n3. 45.10 ; his Siddhnta-kaumudT Blvabodha, Chndra reenst by and other wor>s 31 ; authors i\yapa 62.20 ; eupt-iecdrs ali tuoted hy him 46.n2 ; his preother Chndra treatises in Oeysmued im lebtedness to llem alon 62.23. i char.dras abdnusana 46.21 ; Bftlvabodha by Narahari 116.1611. * disciplo o f eshakrisha 46.3 ; Ba 53.23. pei soiiiA dotai Is about him Bendall, Catalogue of Nepal ms?. 40.23IT ; lns date 47.3ff ; works 4 5 .n2. of Bhattoji Lkshita 4 7 -9fF, 53.3, Bhgavata-pura 105.n l, 105.12 ; 53.16, 54.17 ; gencological table not the \vork o f Bopad eva 105.n3. for B h aitojis fam ily 48.nl ; his Elmra v a i n i u R co m . on tho 13u ipart in modern rcvival of Pini bLuelicodu^kliaia 55.9 . 92.17 ; 103.5 ; testi lies to the do Bhandarkar 1\. G., llepoit for 1883mi nation of Bopadeva 107. 7ft. 84, 3 G.ti2 ; Report for 1882-83, Bhv ipra kik, Vai dy n th a s 97.n l ; on P idV, (bite 14.7 ; com. on the Babdaratna 50.15* on Patajali's date 32.12 ; Eaily Bhfivishvotlnia-Pura 39.19; 40.3. H istory of tho Deccan 105.m2. BhTmabhata s com. on the PariBhandarkar S Ih 99 n l. bhshenduekhara 55.10. Bhnu-dksU 'a abas Viv. vaia Bhimasena 42.8 ; mentioncd as a nlias Rmrama, son of Bhalloji vniter on loots by Syaa 53.2. 46.25. BhHhmaparvan, Mahbhrata, 16.8. B h radvja mentioned by Punini Blu ja cucted by Ksbrasvrain52.3; 12.n2. tjnotod by Hemachandra 76.n2. B h ia d v jv a m eutioned hy P atafi Bhoja II ( dlmra ) 67.4. jali 31.nlO . Bhoja, son of Bhaiamalla 115*33. Bhramalla, fathe r o f Bhoja 115.33. Bhoja vvkarana by VinavasuBhnrata, commentator of tfe Bliadara 115.32ff. tikvya 110.2. Bliolntha quoting from DurgBhartrihari*s acconnt of the vicissidsa 107-32. tudea in the text o f the MahBhuiiprayoga o f Padmanbhadatta bhshva 13.26, 13-n4 ; 27.n5 ; aut qi;otcs U j jvaladatta 111 l3 f, hor of Vkyapadya 27,55.23 ; 111.712. Itsin g s date for him 40-17 ; also Bhtibali fpiotcd by Pujyapda author of a com , Dipi k, on the 66 n.2 . Mahbliehya 4 i.3 , 4 2 .n 2 ,109.8 ; Dombi v Braneh of the B. A 8 ., quoted by Vitthalchrya 45.20 ; jv urnai of, 3 5 .n2. his preceptor Vasurta 59.1. Bopadeva qnotcs by name various Bhsas Svapna-Vsa vadt t 13.28. grammarians 10.7, 10.n3, 92.5 ; Bhshyakra, see Patafijali. rjuotod hy Vitthalchftrya 45.21; Bbvasimha 116.5. mentions D evanadl as author o f Bbvasimha-Prakriy hy Birntta Juinendia grammar 63.22; quotes vi nyaka 11G.3. Vardhamna 88.23 ; quotesT riloBhaUa Gopla 100.16ff.

1*4

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

chanadsa 89.2 ; nowhere re- Chandragomin 20*8; his date fer to Srasvata 92.1, 93*26 ; 35*19; quoted by name in Bopa97.32 ; bis date 91.27 ; 82 ; per dcvas Mugdhabodhal0.n3; men sonai details about him 105.3011: ; tioned by Vmanchrya 53*30, hia works lOo.lOfli, 105.n3; the re53*n2 ; quoted in Gaaratnaligiou9 element in his grammar mahodndhi 18.nl; Chandragomin 106.llff, 113.13,114.16, 106.nl ; and his v/ork 22, also 42 and his extreme divergence from foliovving ; vvas a Bauddha 35*4, Pinis technical terminology 59*5 ; and wrote primarily for 106.26ff; his opinions refuted by his own Church 35*6 ; his unBha^oji 107.12; his present lim orthodox inuovatioDB 35*6 ; the it J influence 107-18 ; 109.4 ; Ktflk largely indetbed to him 109.18 ; 112.3. 37*1811: ; iliustrations 38*nl ; his Brhmaas, grammatical speculagrammar edited by Liebich tions in, 3 ; their language very 38-nl ; cari irst reference to him different from thatof the Sainhiand his predecessors 41T9ff ; ts 3.8, 3.nl ; their u ain interesi: mentioned l>y Kshrasvmin as sacerdotal, and grammar only of author of some work on roots seeondary interest 3 24 ; 6.nl ; 52*14, 52n2 ; his Dhtuptha 12.6; 56.2. incorporated with the Ktantra Brahmasagaramuni 97.19. 52*18; 57*n2; his date 43, 58-n2, Brihad-gachchha of Nagpur 98.10 ; ! 64*13 ; his own vritti on the founded by Dcvasri 98.12. Chndra stras 58*22, Gl*9 ; exists B 1 1 at -K har at ara -ga chc!iha 99.15. now in fragments 61.10 ; incor porated fcy Dharinadsa 61*12 ; Brihadvritti, aco fcibdnudsananature of bis work 44; imroves brihadvritti. upon Pinya grammar 59*9fli ; Bfihler, on introduetion of art of his Dbtiiptin 59* 14 ; his really vvriting 4.n3; redards Jayditya original contvihution 59*19; his a Ksmrian 36 .22, 30.n4 ; 41.7 ; ohjuet 59*27.11 ; his turminology 58.6 ; his pmnphlet on IlmnamostIy PinTya 60*1 ; his gram chandra 73 12ff ; 77.6 ; 82.n2 ; mar rnekn rned Asajaka 00.4, 85.n3 ; 91.8 ; 91.n2. 60*nl ; other uccessory works Burnell, Bssay on Aindra School of hy him 00*9ff ; no Chndra parigrammarians, 3.nl; 10.25; ll.n l: bhshis 61*2 ; non-grammatical 11.8 ; 12.9 ; 82.12. works of, 61*411 ; 69*19; 70-21T, 70-n2; 70*n3 ; 70.n4 ; 71*2; C (uoted hy Hemachandra 76* n2 ; his grammar said to agrce with Oambay 53.28 ; 74.9. that of Pini 10*19. Cevlon, Chndra treatises in, 61.22 ; C h a n d ra k iu i a n th o r o f S u b o d h ik 62.15. Chchiga fatber of IIemnebaudi a i or Dlpik on >irapvata-prakriy 98*711; personai d e ta ils ab o u t him 73.25. 98*10ff ; his d ate 98* 17f ; pat.roChaitanya 113.18. n ise d hy Salii S alem , th e em perot Chaitanvmrita, a Vaishava gram o f Delhi 98*17, 9 8 -n l ; 103*11. mar 114.3i Chkravarmaa mentioned hy P Chandraekhai*ri-vidylakra, his commcntnry on G.oyrc:handras ini I2*n2. vritti 110*19. Chakravarti, Professor Srish Chan Chndra stras, vritti on, probab!y dra, 39.nl. by Chandragomin himself 58*23 ; Chlukya 72.25. Chartvara teacher of Vu devamentions a Grupta victory over Has 58*24 ; Dbarmadsas combhata 98.24. on, 61*12 ; other \vorks now only Chandra, see Chandragomin. in Tibetan translations 61*25 ; or Chandradsa 59.6. Chndra-gachchha 78.33. in Ceylon 61*22; their list 61*nl;

General In d ex
Ceylonese recast supersecf s them in Ceylon 62.23.,
ChandrvatT mother o f Vijjalabhpatt 116.27. Chgadeva, Hemachandras first name 73.25. Charaas, rules for, framed 4.10. Charmairas mentioned ?n the Nirukta 8 .n l. Chauhna 116-28. Chhy, V aidyanthas eom. on the MahbbshyapradTpoddyota 50.14. Chheda-stra 7 3 .n l. ChhichbubhattaaLaghuvritti 91.19. Chidastbiml, Vaidyanthas com. on N gojibh attas abdenduekhara 50.16. Chidrp^ramas Dlpavykarana H 6 .7 . ^ , Chintmai, com. on Skatayanaabdnusana by Vakshavarman 72.3 ; sub-conmentaries on it 72.Gff. Chintmai, see Mahbhshya-ehinlm ai. Chintmaipratipada, M agarasas com. on the Chintmani 72.7. Choda 16.30. Climatic conditions, causes of dialectical peculiarities, ard influeccing study of grammar 3.1. Colebrooke 68 .n l ; 109.4 ; 110.23 ; 112.12 ; 114.3. Cnnninghan identifies P in is native place witli Labaur 19.2.

i *5

D
Dksh, name o f P in i b mother 19.8, 1 9 .n l. Dmodaradatta father o f Padrnanbhadatta 111.4. Darina 16.1. Daranaistra, Digambara, 65.3. Daypla's abridgm ent. Bupasiddhi, o f katyana abdnu4sana 72.23; personai details about him 72.23ff ; his date 72.26. D eibces ( D ivau has ) first king o f the akas or Skythiar:s, cir. 700 B. C. 18.1. Devachandra prophesies Hemachandras future greatness 74.4 ; receivCR him into order 74.11. Devagiri 104.32, 105.3.

Devanand author o f Jainendra gram m ar63.14ff; h in ew techni* eal terms 66.5, 6 6 .n l, does not acknow ledge obligations 66-10 ; namea tjuoted by him 66.12, 6 6 .n2 ; 67.16 qtioted by H em achanda 76.n2. Devarja mentions KabTrasviruVs N igha tuvn tti 52.10. Devasundarasri teacher o f Gua ratnasfiri 80.15. Devasri founder o f the Brihad gaeiichha o f Nagpur 98.10ff. Devendraburi author o f Haimu laghunysa and pupil o f Udayn chandra 78.33ff, 7 9 .n l. D evldsa quoted by Durgdsa 107.30. Dhanachandra 78.14. Dhanajaya-kota 63.21. Dhanetvara or D hantia teacher o f Bopadeva 99.n2 ; 104.30, 1 0 5 .n l. Dhanes vara, BhaUa, criticises K shemendra 98.2f, 99.21 ; his date 99.21H; not same as teacher of Bo padeva 99.n2 ; his works 100.lfl:. Dharmaosus com. incorporatee the Chndravritti 61.12. Dlnrina stras o f som e kind known to Pini 14.n2. Dhtuptha, the PinTya 25.14, 2 5.n2 ; its anubandhas same as those of Pini 25.18, 25 -d 3 ; com. by Bhattoji 4 7 .10; com. by K shrasvm in in his Dhtuvritti 52.6if ; other writers on Pinya Dhtuptha : viz. Chandra 52.15, 5 2 .n2; Mdh&va or Syaa 52.28; Bhmasena 53.2 ; Maitreyaraksliita 53.2; and Ngeta 53 .3 ; the Chndra was incorporated by Durgasiriiha with the Ktantra 52.19, 59-14, 60.10, 60.19; 88.3ff, 9 0 .lfl: ; Jumaranandi revises Pinlya and adopts it for his own school 110.3 f ; of Sau padma 112-19 ; o f kat;yana 71.15 ; o f Hemachandra 77.21; the genuineo f Ktantra school in Tibetan tranalation only 90.4 ; for the Srasvata, by Harshaklrti 98.14, with a com. on it called TaragiI 103-9; the Saupadma m odelled after P inis 112.32 ; com. Dbtuniraya on it 113.1.

136

Slstems o f HansArit Grammar

his date 83*16; his straptha differs from tbe one current in Kthnr 83.21f, 87-27, 9-14 ; 85*5ff ; author o f an Udiptha 85 ti2, 1)0-1 * , a aiva 88*nl, and distinet from his namesake, a Bauddha 88-2, who wrote & com. on his v n tti 88*10, and from other later namesakes o f his 88-llff ; known in Krimlr much late 91*6. Durgasimha, Bauddha, author o f a com. on Durgasimhas vritti Durgasiriiha-vntti, com. on. by lUghunandanruiromai 84-26; by another Durgasimha 88*10; other comin. on it 69 ; a com. (anonymous) on it 99*nl. Durgtma ( or D u rga) perhapa a ViMaiva 88-n3, and author o f a Ligriussana 88-15,88*n3,85*n2 distinef from Durgasimha 88 12; 89*16; 89-29. Durgtma author o f ( Ktantra ) L igm m sana 85*n2; different from Durgasimha above 85-n2. Dvrakd-a alias Dvrika father of Tarkatilaka-bliattchrya
1 0 2 *21*

Dhtupraka by Blarma-paehnana 114.26.

Dhtuvritti by Kshlrasvmin 52.6ff; its nature and contents 52.20ff ; by Mdha'Va or Syaa 52.28. phuhik on Hernaohandras Brihadvritti 78.10; its nature 7 8 ,2 8 ff; its diputed authorBhip 78.10H; its pr* bable varying voraior.e 78-20 ; on the last chapter o f the Brihadvritti 78.24ff ; 89-20. phudliik on Durgasimhas vritti 89.19f.

Dhtmduka, native place of Ilemachandra 73.23.

Dhvanipradlpa 97.9Dialeoical peculiarities causes o f shifting clim atic conditions, and promoting study o f grammar 2.29. Dkshita school 48.nl ; grammatical w crks outside it 33. Dlpa-vykarana by Chidrpraum 116.7. Dlpik on H em achandrafl Bhadvritti 78.9. Dpik or Subodhik by Clmndra* KTrti, with an important prasa^t) at the end 98.7ff. Dowson 9 9 1 . Dravidasagha 65*5. Durga different from Durgasimha 88*12 ; 89-16 ; see Durgtma also. Durgchrya uuthor o f corn. on Nirukta 8 8 1 4 . Durgdsa author of a com. on Kavikalpadruma 107-2 8 f ; authors quoted by him l07-30ff. Durgapaduprabodha by rTvallabha Vchanchrya on Hrmachandras Lignudsaiia 80-2f. Durgasimha mentions K tyyana as the author of the Udistras 2 7 4, 27-n2 ; quoted by Vittbal* < clSryiT 4 5 ; inoorporatrs ChSndra Dbtuptha with the Ktantra 52*19, 88-3ff, 9 0 -lff; takes over most of the Pinya paribhshs 55-12 ; quotod by Hemachandra 7 6 .n2, 88.3 ; says that the Krit* prakaraa of the Ktantra is by Ktyyana 84T7ff; Durgasim ha and his vritti 68 ; his vrtikas to the Ktantra 8 7 .n l ; his date 83 16, 88*6 ; not th e first commentator o f Ktantra 83- 17ff;

88'8\

Dvrika, nth Dvrukdsa Dvyrayam ahkvya of chandra G6-20; 77-17. E

Hema

Eavly H istory of India by Vincent rSinitb 17*5; 17*16, 82*n3. Early Ilistory of the Deccan by Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar 105-n2. E^atern school mentioned by P ini 10*12; 12*n2; 18-33. E ggelin gs edition of tbe Ktantra 85-22; 87*nl. Elliot 99-n l. Epigraphica Indica 69-n2.

F
Farnily-books of Vedas, compilers of, 6*nl.

G
Gad hy Vaidyantha, a com. on Pri bhs hend u^ ekhara 50* 13. Gaddh ra son of Trilochanada 89*6. Gaisuddin Klulm of M llva 93*7 ; 97-3.

Genmll Index
GSlava mentioned in the Nirukta 8*nl; by Pini 12*u. Gaaptha of Pini 23.2411 ; 25*20 ; 37 ; com, upon by KshTrasvmin 53*10; Chndra60*12: embodied in tho stravritti of Chandragomin 60*24; PiniVa emdodied in the Kik 60*24; of katSyana 7 1 1 4 ; -of Hemachandra 77*26 ; of the Paupadma 113*1.
G an ara tn a m ah o d ad lii (juoting* lt u r ly a or P in i, E u kat yan u , C h a n d ra g o m in , etc. 38 - n l; 4 2 *n2 ; 41* 5 , 4 1 *nl ; 52*16 ; w ith tho a u th o rs o w n com . 5 3 *13 ff: 8 8 *t:4 . G o sv m i, surn am e o f B o pad eva 105 * 8. G flv a rd b n a s v r it t i on U d is, ^ quoted by U jjv a la d a t ta 5 4 *1 4 . G o v a m h a n u b h a tla , gr& n dfath er o f J a y a k r is h a 5 1 *1 2 . G o y cb : n d ra s com . on the S afikshiptasra 110 * 6 fl:;his other w o rk s 110 *14f ; sub-coram eiiIevies on h is com . 1 K M 6 C G ram m ar, its stu d y in In d ia 1*3 ; existing* school o f in In d ia 1 *1 0 ; n o ttre a te d ar e citn ce in V e d ic tim es 2 *1 1 ; its stu d y in flu e n c e d by ccn ta ct o f ditferent fo rm s o f spcoch, by g ro w tli o f diulects, or b y a chtmge o f d im a tie c o n d itio n s 2-21 fF; G re e k -, in f lu enced by Koru un conquest 2 *n2 ; iis etudy aR science post-Brr.h m aic 3 * 29; 4 * 6 ; its re a lly Crea tiv e period 5 *1 7 ; p h ilo so p h y o f , treatises on, 5 5 *16 ff. G ram m ars, V a is h a v a , 11 3 *1 5 . G ru m m atical sp eculation s in In d ia : th e ir exte nt and v a lu e 1 ; e a rly ;------- 2 - 4 ;-------- in the V edas 2 , in tlie B i h m a a s 3 , and in a llio d w o rk 8 4 ; in the T a ittirT ja s a m b it 2 * 1. G re e ks, Io n ia n , not a lw a y s to be id e n tifie d w ith V a va n as 1 5 * 21; th e ir appearance in h is to ry lo n g beforo 1000 B . C . 1 5 * 30 . G h y a -s t r a s o f some k in d kn o w n to P in i 14 *n2 . G u k a ra G4 *n2 . G u a n a n d l G4 *n2 . G n a ra tn a fl ris K riy ra tn a s a m uchchaya 8 0 *12 ff; h is date 8 0 * 16 , 8 0 *n3 ; im p o rtan t p r a s a s t i at the e nd of: h is w o rk 8 0 *16 ff. G upta v ic to ry o v e r H u a s 5 8 *2 4 ; E a r ly k in g s 6 4 * 24.

G a a v n tti by K s h ra sv m in m e n tio ned by Vardlnmna, 52 l l .

O iu e v a ra fa th e r o f P ad m an b h adatta 111 * 6.

G.ug^.i mentioned b y P iiin i 12*n2; mentioned in th e Nirukta 8* n l. Gtngovinda, <om. on, hy Ngoik.
40* 7. G o ld stu c k e r : P iia , H is p lace in S a n s k rit lite ra tu re , on P r im it iv c P r ti k h y a s 5 *nl ; 23*7 ; on P in is p a rib h sh s 2 5 - n l ; his v ie w s as to the a u th o rsh ip o f tiic ll d is t r r s 26*25 , 2 6 t 3 ; on V ja s a n e y i P r t i k h y :i 2 9 *n2 * 3 2 * n l; 8 8 *4 ; on P in is d u te ! 4 * 7, 14 * n lt I 4 *n2 ; 1 9 *n3 ; h is reasons f o r a ss u in in g co n sid e ra b le in te rv a l b ctw ecn P in i and K ty y a n a 2 8 * n l; 5 4 *nl.

G om atasura, a p h ilo so p h ica l w ork in P r k r it 7 2 *1 5 G onardTya m e n tio n e d in tho M a li h h sh y a 3 2 * 29 , 3 2 *n2 : quoted hy V ts y y a n a in tho K rn a s tra 3 3 *n3 , 3 3 * 5. G o ik p u tra m entioned n the M ah b h sh y a 3 2 -2 9 , 3 2 *n2 ; quoted b y V ts y y a n a in tlie K m a s fitra 3 3 * 5 , 33 *n3 . G o p u la c h a k ra v a rtis com . o% the Ja u m a ra 110 * 23. !? G o p la g ir is subodhinT on V ijjstla b h u p a tis P rab o d ha-prakdtt 1 1 5 .3 0 . GopTntha T a r k c h r y a w rite s sub* com . to S rT p a tis supplom ent to K t a n t ra 9 0 *1 6 ; 9 0 * 20.

H
H a im a -D h ltu p th a 7 7 *2 1 . H a im a K aum udT b y M e g h a v ija y a m entions B h a t t o jis in d e b te d n e ss to H e m a ch a n d ra 46 *2 1 ; o th e rw ise c a lle d C h a n d ra p ra b h 79*17 ; its date 79 1 7 . H a im a -la g h u n y sa on H e m a o h a n d ra s B n h a d v r it t i 7 9 l f f a b rid g -

4 s&

$ystems o f Sanskrit Grammar

47*10; consecrated sri orchrya 74-16; attracts attention o f Jayasirhha Siddharja 74-29; writes abdnusana for bim 75*18, 75*nl; converts Kumrapla 75*8, writes Yogastra at the instance of Kumrapla 75-16 ; his pilgri mage 75*20, and death 75-24; his indebtodness to the A m oghavntti and to kat;yana abdnu sana 76*12, 76-nl ; g iv es the p ra a sti of his patron in his Brihadvritti 77*3ff; author of Dvyruya-mahkvya 77*17 ; also of ucces8ory tre>tises 77*28, but not of tlie vivaraas or vrittis on tliein 77*30ff; other works o f H e machandra 80*20; does not use pratyhras 81*6 ; 89-21. H emachandras abdnusana one of the works presumably used by Bhattoji 46*22 ; its nature 58 ; its object 76*6ff; authors own com. on it 76*17ff ; other comm. and sub-eommentaries on it 60 ; digests, manuals, and m iscellaneous \vorks 61 ; the Prkrit chapter from it 76*2; its later independent history 81*l2ff; Dhuhik on it 78*25; 89*21. Hemdri minister of Mahdeva and patron o f Bopadeva 105*2ff, 105-nl. Hemahasavijayagai vvrites on paribhshs for Hemachandras school 80*3ff ; his Nyyrtham ajsh 80*7. Hemanandanagai teaeher of a ha jaklrt-i 100*22. Hirdhara son of Vijjala-bhpati 115-29. H istory o f Ancient Indian Litera ture, by Max Miillor, 4 - n l ; 4-n3 : 9-n l ; 12*nl ; 14-nl. H istory o f Indian Literature by W eber 82*7. Iliuen Tsang, his account about the Aindra school 10-17 ; 19-3. Humayun 93^9. Huas, Gupta victory over, 58-26.

m ent o f a larger N ysa 792f. Httima-Iaghuprakriy by Vinayaviiayagai 79 12; com ., Haimapraka, on 79*1.4. Haimapraka com. on Haimalaglmprakriy 79*14, its date 79-15, 79-n3. Haima school absorbs Pinfya Udistras 54*8 ; 77 23; see also H emachandra. 11a 8a vi j ay aga ni s abdrtlmchandrik 100*27 ; his date 100 30. Haradatta author of. Padamajar 26 ; personai details 3 9 T 0 ff; his originul name Sudarana 40-nl ; his date 40 11; quoled by Vitthalchrya 45 '20. llaraprasda Shastri 5 8 8 ; 82*n2. Hrvali lll* n 2 . Hari, see Bhartrihari. ilaribhadra, see H aribhatta. Haribhatta or Haribhadra fui ber of Kshemendra 97*29. Hari-dkshita teaeher of N gea 47*19, 48-nl. Hridravaka mentioned in th c Nirukta 8-n l. Harilllmrita by Bopadeva 105*12, 105n l. Harinmmrita 9 6 ; two such grammars 113*16ff ; their te ch nical terms 113*23ff. Harirma, aBengal Ktantra writer, quoted by Kavirja 90*14. Harirmas com. on Goychandras vritti 110*20. Harivama ( Jain ) 63*21. Harshaklrti pupil o f ChandrakTrti 98-13 ; wrote a Dhtuptha for the Srasvata with an important p r a a s ti a tth e end 98.15, and a com. on it called Taragi l 103-9 ff. Harshakula teaeher of Udayasaubhgya 78*26. Harshavardhana 53*20, Haryaksha 35-nl ; 41-20. Hemachandra 57-n2 ; mentions DevanandT as author o f Jainendra 63-22; 66-20 ; 68*31; his LignuElana based on that o f Skavana71*22; biographicalm ateriaf of 73-n2, couected by Biihler 73-17 ; his life 57 ; his birthpkce 73-23; received into order

I
India; what can it teachus, 41*n3.

General ndex
Indian Antiquary 13; f. 19-n4; 30-n2; 31-nll 82-13 ; 3 2-nl; 33*n2 ; 35 n2 > , 37-n2; 41-n3; 6 1 -n l; 04-nl ; 64-14 ; 67-n2 69-9; 69-n2; 7 2 -b l; 72-n3; 7o.iu.
Tndische Studient12*nl ; 33*10. Indo~Aryans, by Rj. Mitru, on the identifieation of Yayunas vvitli ionian Greeks 15*21. Indra alias Indragomin quoted by name in Bopadeva's Mugdha bodha 10*n3 ; but not so quoW in Pinis A shtdhyy; spoken of as tbe first of grammarians 10*25, I0*n4 ; quoted by katyana 70*, 70*n5; quotd by Hemachandra 76*n2. Indra (God) revcals grammar to Jinu 63*4, 63*n2Indradatta said to have een at first a foliower of the Aindra school 10*16; and a contemporary of Pini 19*10. Ionian Greeks not always to be identified with ,Yavnas 15*21 ; their appearance in history long before 1000B.U., 15*30. Ishtis of Patafijali 33*15. 35*3. Idvarakrisha alluded to in Jain endra* stras 64*19 ; his 1wo aliases 64*n4. dvarnandas Vivaraa on Kaiy~ y atas PrdTpa 43*3. Itsings account of Jayditya and his work 35*25.
from whoin vetm baras borT o w e d it6 3 .n l ; its real author Hevammdl 63.140:, alias Pfijjrapua 63.25, 64.n2 ; date of its foindaiion 48, 64.16ff ; the Jain iidat stras ollude to dvarakrishu 64.19 ; character o f grumnn.v 49 it& >v t) versions 65.13fi' ; ts wrfnt o f oriin lity. 65.2511, comtnenturioson it67.1x; its reeast 67.1211 ;its later nogleet and present "latus 67.2Cff ; 68.8 ; 70.5 ; 70-M ; 8^.30 ; 93.26. Juiyyata father of K aiyyata 42.6. Janrdai.a son o f RmabhaijA 101.18. Jaumara school, absorbs Painrya .Uridistras 54.8 ; its name a misnomcr 108 2711 ; its special featun s 87 ; its alternutive name 109.32. Jayditya his date 35*20 ; men tioned by Itsing 35*22, 35-26 ; his work called vritti stra 35.23 ; at lea sl a contcraporury of the author of tho Vskyapadtya 35.n2 ; his centri bution to tlie Kdi k listingnished from that of Vmana 36*4, 36.nl ; refevs to Lokyatikas 36*16, 36.n3 ; prtot ps same as Jayplda of lim r 36.19 ; native o f Kthnlr 36.22. Jayakrisha supplem ents tbe Tattvabodhinl by a section on svara and vaidik prakriy 48.5 ; his date 48.8. Jayakrislm as com. o n th e Laghusiddlmntakaumudl 51.11 ; per sonai details about him 51,1 lff. Jayanta author of Tattvachandra, an abrigraent o f the PrakriykaumudT 5 1 .n l. Jayantlkra quoted by H emachan dra 76. n2. JavpTa supposed to be pupil o f KsliTrasvmin 52*2. Jayasim ha II (C hlukya emperor ) alias Vdirja, fellow -stu dcnt o f I)aypla 72.24if. Jyasinfha-Siddharlja patron o f lien - chandra 74*2013:; stories about him and Hemachandra 74*32 ; his death 75.1 ; th e

J
Jagaddhara, Bha^g, author of Blabodhinl 91.12. Jaganntha gives personai details about Bhattoji 46.27f ; pupil of the son of eshakrisha 4712, 48.nl. Jaganntha, author of Srapradi pi k, quotes Kshemendra 98.1,

100. 6.

Jahangir, Bmperor, 93.9 ; ,102.26; 102.n2. .i . * f . , Jainendra quoted by ame in Bopadevas Mu^dhabc|wba 10.n3 ; 53.n2 ; mentioned %*' Vmunchrya 53.31, 53.n2 Jainendra School 47 ; its traditional author 62.32 ; its strap^ha originally

belonged to Digambara Jains,

i7 [Sk.Gr.]

*4,0 y

y$tem$ o f anskrit ramma

K
K achchyanas P a li Grammar closely rclatcd to T olkappijatn 11*5; and based on K tantra 82-10. Kadamba kin gs, Early, C4-23. Kaera 16*30. Khnu father o f M dhava 98*20. K aiyyata quotcs from tlie works o f Sp isali and K akritsna 10*3, 10*n2 ; 24*nl ; the PadamailjarT based on his Pradpa 40*7, 40*n2 ; his Pradpa marking end o f s e cen-1 period in the histroy o f PinTya school 28 ; his probable date 41*29 ; personai d e tails about him 42*5f; quotcd in the Sarva-dar4ana-sagrah*i 42*21, 42*n2 ; acknow ledges indebtedness to Bhartnhari 42*25; auotcd hy VitthalSclSrva 45*19 ; 59-21 ; 76*n2. K a 1 kala quoted by Hem achandra 76*n2. Kala, Vaidyantba's com. on N g egas Vaiykaraa-siddhntam a j sh 50*15. Klpa-dhtustra 90*4. Klpa grammar sai 1 to agrce w ith the Aindra grammar 10*20 ; also culled Kaumra and Ktantra 82*22f, 83*9 f. Kalpaka quoted by H em achandra ^ 76*n2. _ K alpavyakaraotpattiprastva by Vanamli 82*n2. K alpin, tbe v eh iele o f Kumra 83*9. K lc gurnam c o f N goiibhatta 49*34. Kalhaa 36*20. K lidsa 57*22 ; 58*n2; 101*16. K lik-sutra 73*nl. K alpastras,8am ayasundaras com . on, 63*2, 63*n2. K a!ya, P rince, patron o f eshakrisha 45*29. Kalyasaras vatisL agh usras vata 103*24f. Km raother o f Bm abhatta
101* 12.

abdanuriusona written at his request 75-18. Jina or Mahvlra, traditional author o f the Jainendra school G2.32f ; 08.4. Jinadattasiri teaeher o f Amorachandni 80.8. J i n mn an d a n a s K urn ra pla c h ar i t a 73 .n2. Jinapvabhasri alias Jinaprafcodha, author o f a com . on Ktantravvitli-pajik 80 u2 ; particuliirs about lm 89.n2. Jiuaprabodha, see Jinaprabhasri. Jinarutna, see Jinendu. Jinusgara 78.16. Jincndrabuddlu author o f Nysa on K ik 25, 7 1 .n l ; I is date 85 n2, 88 12; quoted by Bhmnh 85.1*2, 88*1811 ; called som etim es Ethavira-lincndra 58.n2 ; etylcs himRclf BodhisattvadeTyclirya 88.11 ; n t later than 750 A .D . 88 12 ; quoted by V itthalchrya 45.20. Jinendu alias Jinaratna author of Siddhntarotna 102*27. Ji'vngosvtnirPs I larin m iu rita 114.1. Jnatilaka 103*12. Jnc neira-saros vati author o f tho TattvabodhinT 47-25. Jfi pakas 3 5 1 7 , 54.27ff, _54*n2, 56 25 * , see also Paribhshs. Jodhapur (Yodhapura) 80.1, 8 0 .n l. Jogars j a s Pdapr ak ar a osagati 84-20, App. 2 ; m entioned by Mnkha 84,22 ; assigns the K tantra Kritprakarau to katyana 84 24. Journal of the A siatic Society o f Bengal 33*n l . Journal of the Pombay Branch of the 11. A . S. 3 5 .n2. Junmrannndl author of the vritti, RnsavatTon Kramadl4varas Saksbiptasri 1 0 9 .2 7 ff; th e school roccives nam e (J au m ara) from bira 1 0 8 .2 8 ; and (R s a v a ta ) from his vritti 109.32 ; rovises PinTya Dhtuptha for his own school 1 1 0 3 f. Jupiter, tw olve year cy clc of, 61*21, 6 4 n 5 .

K m adhenu bv Bopadeva 68*31 ; quot.es Vardhainna 88*23; com. on th e authors Kavikalpadruma 105*11.

General lndex
KfmaBtra quote Gonardya and GonikSpntra 88*5, 33*n3. Kamboja 16*3$. Kahdarpasidhntaa com. on tho Saupadma 112; 13. Krkas, treatises on, 55*28. Krikvnli by Nry*a Bhatt* chrya 116*12. K rttikeya rcvealed Aindra gnunmar to Saptavarnmn 10*22: nee also Kumra. Kakritsna. founder of a gramma* ticaischool, 9*23 ; his grammar consisted of stras in th ice A dhyyas 10 3, 10*nl |K a iy y a ta quotea from bis grammar 10*4; 10*n2 ; qtioted bv name in Bopadovas Mugdhabodha P'-7, I0*n3. K ik g ives a rule of A p i li 9*24; te lls that Kakritsnas grammar consisted of stras in throc Adhyyas 10*3, 10 n l ; does not anywhere mention the Aindra school 11*E0 ; 20*8 ; 2 8 * n l; its date 35*20 ; a joint work of Jnyditya and Vmana 23 ; pcrhais sam e as Vnttistra mentioned hy Itsing 35*24 ;quotes Vkynpadlva, und so not oovlier than 050 A .D . 35*n2 ; Nysu onhy Jinendrab^uldhi 2 5,35*n2;personality of the authors o f 36.1 lff ; Bla'strEs cdition of 8G*n3 ; nature of the 37*10 ; quoies a a rule of Apiali 37 *8, 9 n3 ; g iv e s a ncw vrtika of tho Sauilgas 37*11 ; its indebtedness to Chandragomin 24, 62*2,59*21, asascertiiincd by Kiolhorn 37*20; illustratcd 38.nl ; Kik does not ackno\vlec!gc its indebtedneps 38*5, 58*18 ; Harathiifas Padamnfrjarl on the K il 2 f; 47.13 ; emhodics PinTya Gaaptlia 6025 ; apparcntly knous the Jainendra G4T7. 64 n3. Kikkra quoted hy Heninehandra 76*u2, Kikvivaranapun-jik, see Nysa. Kntha author o f Bara, a com. o n tb c Prakriyknnmud 46*n l. Kntha, his Brasvaia-bhshya 100* 9ff ; his date 100*13. Kvara quoted l y Durgadgsa 107*31 ; his sopplement to the M ngdkalodha 108*10. ^T varas com. on the Saupadma 112*13; his G aaptha to Saufrnclma 113*1 ; com. on it by Rnmknta 113*2. Ivyapa m entioned by Priiri 12*n2. Ksyape author of tho Chndra recast, Blvabodha 62*20. K tantra, c*losely rolated to Tulko ppiyim 11*5 ; a lso rh s PinTya U d isu tras 54*8 ; why so called 81 *^GfT; trnditiom d account of its origin 64; its date 82*n3, 83-281V ; its tv. o reeensions 87*2511 : F e rg n l cou m. on 71; its study no . eonfined to a fe w distriets of I'cngul 9 0 3 2 ; its bisfory in K m r 7 2 ; iricorporates C handra D lm tupithi 5*2*19 ; lakos o \e r most of the P intva p a rilh sli s 55*11; 81*7 ; intciolutioTis in tk( S trap th a 65 ; 87*170; its early history 07; 93*2 ; 98*31 : 106*5 ; 110*26*. Kta ntrav i stn ra , Va r d linu * na s t on i. on Durgasiiiihas vritti. 8x8-20 ; a sub-eom. r n it l>y PriihvTv l n ra 88*24. Ktantravritlijiifijik, Trilodianad sas com. on Pu rg u s im h a s vritti 89*111; suIm on mentaries on it 89 7ff. Iuitlisaritsgara accc.nt a h m l P nini,'bis picdcc csrors and com teniporaries 10*13i, 19*9fT; 28*12: 29-7 ; its account a b o il Ktyyna 31 3, 31-n l. K nthavato, Prcfesso*, 63*8, Ktthakyft m eitio ncd in the >i ukta 8 n l . K ty y ana 7*17 ; 7*21 ; 7.n2 ; alias V ararm lu 85.nl, said to Tia\e Leon at llrst, a fullovt cr of iho Aindra school 10*15 ; 12 6 ; 14 5 : his knoviledgo of th e Vavnnas more e x a d than that of f n in i 16*25 ; 17*4 ; 17 30 ; 18*14 ; trnid to he a eoTitemporary of P ini 1910 ; hc p r o h i l l y c g a r d e d lhe U disulia s as P i n i s 26 18, 2G*nl ; he also p ro b a ly n ochlied them 26*27 ; rncidicncd as t i c

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

sole author o f the Udisfitra, by Vimalasarasvati 27*2, 27*nl ; by Durgasimha 27-4, 27*n2; Vrtikakras b fo. o him 28*5; considerabL m terval betw een him aud Pini 27*7, 27*nlt 84*19 ; his date 17 ; his relation with tho Naudas 29*6 ; nature o f his work 18 ; his tirst work, Vjasaneyi Prtikhya 29*13 ; extent o f his eriticism ori Pini 30/1 ; his criticism also constructiv e 30*9, but in places unjust 30*13 ; did not uniform ly follow P in is torunology 30*24ffi ; probably belonging to a diforent school of grammar from Pini 31 5 ; called a southerner by Patafijali 31 *6, 31*n2 refers to katyana 31*n3, kalya 31*n4, Vjapyyana 31*n5, Vyi 31*nC Paushkarasdi 31*n7, and others 31.u8 ; 38*nl ; 54 21 ; 59.10 ; G9*18 ; 70*14. Kaumra another naino of Ktantra 83*8. K aum uJ 104*11; see Siddhntu kaumud, Prakriy-kaumudT, and H aima-kaum udl. Kaum udkras as authors o f mod ern rovi vai o f Pini 90.31. K aushtuki m entioned in the Nirukta 8 u l. K autika, a Jain Tlrtha 98*11. K autillya 32.16. Kautsa m entioned in the Nirukta 8*nl. Kavikalpadruma by Bopadeva vvit.li his o\vn com., Kmadh'nu, 105 lOf, 108*15(r ; com. by Uurgdsa 107*29. K avirja a Beugtl com. on Ktan tra 90*13; quote- Trilochanadsa an 1 is quoted by Harirma 90*14. K vyapraka 42*8. Kerala 16*30. Kern : Manual of Buddhism 59*u2. KesarT, artiele in, by Mr. ltajavad<* 17.96*. K eava, fa th e r o f Bopadeva 104.29; 105*nl. K eavadevat-arkapauchnanabhattchrya,s Vykaraadurghatodghta on GoyIchandra*s com. 110*18, 110.n3. *

Keavavari pupil of Abhayaehandra 7 2 4 3 ; author of a com. on Goma;asra 72*15.

Kharatara-gachchha 99*1; 100.23. K ielhorn, his ed. of. the Malibhshya 7*n2; 11*31 ; 19*27; 27.n 5 ; 30.n2 ;3 1 * n ll ; about Patujali being distinet from Gonardlva and Goikpntra 33.3 ; on tne indebtednesa o f the K ik to Chandragomin 3 7 21fl! ; about Bhartriharis eom. on the Mahb h sh y a 4 l.n 2 ; doubts e x isten ce of Pujyapda as a real author 64*1 ff, 66*22; doubts existen ce o f Abliinava katyana 69.1ff ; 81*nl ; 89.n2 ; 89*n3. KirtrjunTya auoted by Haradatta 39* n3. K rtivijayagai teaeher o f Vinaya vijayagai 79*13. * Koabhatta nephew o f B hattoji 4 8 .1 3 ,48*n l ; author o f Vaiykaraabhushaa 48*nl, 48*14, 55*25Kramadvara founder o f th e Jaumara school 1 0830;h is Sakshiptasra probably an abridgm ent of Pini 108*32f ; takes Bhartriharis M ahbhshya-dpik for bis modei 109*8 ; his illustrations m ostly from B hattikvya 109*9; his erudition 109-21; his relation to P in is work 109*9f. Krisbchrya, f atber o f Rmachandra 45*7. Krishrama teaeher o f K shem ondra 97.29. K rislm a-Yajus-Sam hit anterior to Pini 14*12. K riyratnasamuchchaya o f Gnaratnasri 80.12ff, Kshapaakas vritti on U dis, uoted by U jjvaladatta 54*14* KMtemakara 102*1 ; father of Lokeakara 102*13. Kshem endra o f K m r 97*31. Kshem endras com. on Srasvataprakriy m entions Narendra as founder o f the Srasvtta 95*17fli, 97*27; personai details about him 97.286:; quoted by Jaganntha 97*33 ; criticised by Dhanevara 98.2, 99*21; his date 98*5f.

Kshemendratippana-khaana hy Dhanevara 98*3,

Gtntra Index
Kshlrasvmin author of f Dhtuvritti 52*lff ; personai details afcotti him 52*1#; his date &2*4ff; his works 52*$ft'; quotes Chndra DhStupStha 52*16, 60*18 ; quoted l>y Hemachandra 76*n2 ; by vitthalehrya 45*19.
KshTrataragiT by Kshlre^vm in 52*9. Kulachandra quoted by Bamadsa 90*15. K um ara, reveals tho Kaumr or Klpa or K tanLa grammar 83-gff. Kumra pla 7 5 .2 ff his convorsion by Hemachandra 75*8, the them e o f Vataplas drama Mobarjaparajaya 759*11; requeBts Hemachandjra to write the Yoga^astra 75*16 ; his pilgrim age 75*19, and death 75*25 ; 81*4. Kum&raplacharita by Jiram aana 73* n2. Kumrasambhava 105*1. Kumrila 27.n5. K uaravdava mentionod by Patajali 31*nl0Kuni, mentioned by Patafijali 31*nl0. Kutala commentator on Ktantravritti-pajik 89*8.

L
Laghubhshva on the Srasvata, by Raghuntna 103* l f . Laghusrsvata o f Kalyasarasvati 103*24. Lahu-siddhntachandrik by Racmhandrraraa 10220, 103*22. Laghu-siddhntakamnud of. Yaradarja, an abridgment o f the SiddhntakaumudT 51*4; com. by Jayakrishna 51*11 ; 62*21 ; 72*27. Laghuvritti by Chhichhubhatta 9M9*. Laghuvritti-tabdnu^Ssana-rahasya another name for abridgment o f Ileraachandras Brihadvritti Lahaur same as anoient SlStura, the native place o f Psini 19*2.

Lakehtaldhara father o f Bhattoji , 46*23, 48-nl. taEshmdhara son o f Rmabhatta 101*17. G akshuldharchS^a son of Vitihalchrya 45*23. Lakshi;.lvallabha:s UpadetamSlkarik 63*3. Liebich, Bruno, editor of ChSndra *vySkanua 36*l ; 58*9 ; his paper on the date of Chandra gomin and KlidSsa 58*n2; 59.n2; 60*11. Ligakrikl or TiignuSSsana of Chandragomin 60*12. Lignusana, PsinTya, com. by Bhattoji 47*10 ; by Rrnachandra 53*16 ; other writer$ on 53*20ff; Vmanchrvas 53*29:8: ; of Chandragomin 27*15 ; 60*12 ; referred to by VmanSchrya 53*29, Ujjvaladatta, and Ryamukuta 60*20; of katyana 71*16, basis for Ilem aehanaras work 71*22, 7 7 * 2 5 ; of Hemachandra77*23,77*nl ,with vivaraa or vritti on it 77*31 ; and w ith a Durapadaprabodba on it 80*2f ; by Durgtma (Ktantra) 85*n2, 88*n3 ; 89*29. Loknanda, drama by Chandragoinin ( ? ) 61*6. Lokedakaras T attvadlpiks on the Siddntachandriks 102*14ff ; its date 102*16.

M
Mdhava or Syaa author o f the Dhtuvritti 52*28:8:; 107*10. Mdhava, a commentator on the Srasvata-prakriy 98*20fE; his date 98*23. Mdhava, a writer on Srasvata, 103*15, his date 103*17; 103*nl. MdhavTya-Dhtuvritti 52*26 ; quotes Haradatta 39*17 ; quotes Slradeva 55*6. Madhyamik besieged by Menander 32*23.

Lakshmevara 65*6. Lakshmldevl patroness of Vaidyantha 50*6.

Madhya-siddhntakaumudldf Varadarja, an abridgment o f the Siddhnta-kaumudl 51*4; com* by Rmatamanfc 51 10*

<34

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

Maitreyarakshita m entioned as a writer on roots by Syaa 53*2. M alayagiris abdnusana w ith his own com . 80*31ff ; his date Mallintha, his commentary on th e iuplavadha 27 * n 3 ; quotes Padam ajan 39*18 ; quotes Bopadeva in his com. of the Kumra 104*33f; quotes a Chndra rule 57*21, 57*n2. Mammata 42*811; 42*nl. Madana commentator on the Srasvata-p*akriy 98*2711:; personai details about him 98*28ff; patronized by Alpashi of Mlva 99*9. Magarasa author o f a com. on the Chintmai 72*7. M ikyadeva on P inlya Udistraa 54*17. Maiprakik by Ajitasnchrya, a com. on the Chintmai 72*6. Makha author o f rlkatha-charita 84 22. Manoram, see Prauhamanoram. AlanoramkuchamardinT o f Jaganntha g iv e s some personai detail about. P lialtoii 46*28ff, 47*nl. Mantras, Sceis of, C*nl. Alanu mentioned in the Nirukta 8 -n i. Mannai b f Puddhisiu by Kern 59*n2. Manuals, lesser, 98 ; characteristic o f the d ed in in g age o f a school 115*11. Matisgara teaelier <f D aylpla 72*24. Mautii fam ily 48*4 ; 51*12. Mauryas, their linancial cspedient mentioned by Patafijali 32*25. Afaxima of interpretation, see Paribhsh. Max Miiller, H istory o f Ancicnt Indian Literature 4*nl ; 4*n3 ; 4*28 ; on intioduction o f art o f w riting 4*28 ; 9*nl ; 011 P ninis date 14*3; 15*3 ; 28*15. Medes not unknovni to Indians hefore A lexanders invasion 15*33. M idin lll* n 2 . Megha father o f Trilochanad^a 89*6. Meghadta, M allinthas com,. Ou 57*22.

Mgha about authorship o f Udistras 27*6 ; quoted by Haradat ta 39*n3. Mahbhrata,JHJhlshmaparvan*16*8. M ahbhshyaed. o f Kielhorn 7*n2 ; 9*20; does nowhcre mention the Aindra scbool 11*30 ; 13*20; 14*n2 ; g iv es name of P in is mother 19*8; 19*23; 19*n3; 22*nl ; 23*nl ; 24-n l ; 25*25 ; 25*n5 ; g iv es a stanza from tbe PjtinTya iksh 27*15, 27*n5 ; Bhartriharis commentary on 27*n5,41*C>,41*23,109*8; mentions loka vrtikakras 28 4; K i el horn s N ots on 30*n 2,311*n l; describod a<i a* summary of the Sagraha o f Vyi 31*n9 ; describes Ktyyana as a 1 southerner 31; 6, 3l* n 2 ; mentions a number of vrtikakras fo llow iu g Ktyyana 3 l* n l0 ; 32*5 ; mentions (4onardIya and Goikputra32*29, 32*n2; detailed exposition of data in found in Indischc Studien 33*10 ; tex t of th e , traditions about, 33*241f, 41*18; does not notice ali strs o f Pini 34*3 ; fan cifu l explanation o f this fa ct 34*nl ; it mrks end o f the first period in the liistory of Pinya school 21, 56*13 ; Chintmai on , by Dhanevara 100*2. Mahbhshya-ehintmani of Dhaucvara 100*2. Mahbhahya-pradlpa as the basis of Ilaradattas PadamajarT 40*7, 40*n2 ; its e lf indebted to Bhartrihari 42*24 ; commentaries ou, it by N gjibhatta, Nryaa, Jvarnanda, and others 43*111. Mahbhshya-pradipoddyota of Nagojibhatta 43*2 ; 49*10 ; a com. on it by Vaidyantha, called Chhy 50*13. Mahadova father o f Vaidyanatha ' 50*6. Mahdeva, author o f Sabdasiddhi, on Durgasimhas vritti 89*10. M ahsdeva tho Vdava king o f Dcvagiri 105*3. MahvTra, see Jina. M a h o 4 w a precoptor of K aiyyata 42*7. Mahldhara 102*1. Maitreyarakahita 39*nl.

81:4*

m e ta i ndex.
Megharatnas Srasvata vykaraadhuhfkf or Sjlrasvjatadiik 09*14ff. M eghavijaya tells o f lUm ttojis indebtedncss to lloiUachandra

46*20.
M oghavijaya author of Haimakaumudl 79*1811. Menander, his sicge m m iioned by Patafijali 32*24. Merutugttcbryas Prabantihachintmai 73*n2. M iscellaneous E ssays by Colebrooke

68-nl; 114-nl.
Mitkshar (grammar) Annambliata s com. on P ini b Abhtdh yy 50*24. * Mitkshar (law ) the Vyavahraka from it commented upon by Vaidyantha 50*9. Mitra, Rjendrall, on the Identi fication of Vavanas with Icnian Greeks 15*21 ; shows that Patarjali is not same as Gonardya or Goikpntra 33*2. Mohana Madhusudana brolhcr o f Tarkatilakabhattchrya 102*23.

tojis abda-kaustubha 47*22; his pupil, V aidyanltha Ptiyagua 47*23,4 8 n * l; his wprks 32, 53*3; his tim e 49-24S;; invited by Hayi Joysimhu o f Jeypur for an asvamedha 49*3; personai details about him 49*331! ; 55*7. Naidnas mentioned in the ru kta 8*nl. Naivuktas m entioned in the Nirukta- 8 * n l; 21*14 ; their vicw as to root-origin of ali words 25*26. Nanttas, their relation with Kutyayana 29*6. < Nandakiorabhatas supplcment to the Mugdhahodha 108*9; his date

108* 11.

Nandasundora 78*17. Nandisagha Pattuvuli 64*7. C4n*2. Naraharis dlvabodlia 116-lGff. Narasiriiha father o f Kmabhatta
1 0 1 *1 2 .

Moharjaparljaya, dramaby Vaahpla, 75*8. Mugdlmbodha quctcs by namo vanous grammarians 10*n3 ; 91*28 ; 104*23; 105*10; the object o f 83 ; its domination prior to Bhaftoji 107*12 ; commentaries on, 107*246:; Bupplcments to, 108*9ff.; accessory treatises to, 108*1511; 110-27. Muhammedan incursions as affecting growth o f literature 43*151! ;

later Muhammedan rulers as crt atiDg a dernand for Sanskrit gramtnar 43*27, 93*4ff ; 96*7.
Muktphala by Bopadova 105*11, 105*nl. Munitrayam 34*12.

N
Nge&t, see Ngojibhatta. Ngojibhatta speaks o f Santanavchffrya as relativelv modern author 27*n4; his Uddvota on K aiyyatas Pradpa 43*1; his com. on th e Prauhamanoram 47*18, and on the dhytma-Rmyaa 47*21 * , his cotnmentary on Bhat

Nryaas vivaraa on K aiyyatas Pradpa 43*2. Nryaabhrati 101*35. Nryaa Bhattchryas Krikvali 116*12. Nrendra or Narendrchrya m en tioned as founder o f Srasvata by Kshemendra 95*18, by Amritabhrati 95*22; by vitth alachrya 95*24. Nighatu 6 * n l; com mented upon by Yskas Nirukta 8*5. N ighatu-vritti by Kshrasvmin, quoted by, Devarja 52*10. Nllakantha ukla, pupil o f Bhattoji 47-n2, 48*nl. Niptvyayopasargavritti by K shrasvmin 52*8. Nirukta o f Yska, its date 6; 7*9; its nature 7; teachers and schools referred to in it 8*nl; introduetion to, by Pandit 8atyavrata Sraa^raml 14*17; 25*25; 25*n4; quotes kayana 68*25; com. on, by Durgchrya 88*14. Niruktanirvachana by Devarja 52*10. Niryukti 73*nl. Northern school mentioned by Pini 12*n2. Nrisimhchrya father o f V ijhalchrya 45*22.

Systm s o f Sanskrit Grammar

N j sa on K ik by Jinendrabuddbi 35*n2, 25; othervvise known as K ik-vivaraa-pajik 38*9; not a single e ^ tio n or a cornplete manuscript o f it in existence 39*1, 39*ln ; said to have been comm ented upon by M aitreyarakshita 39*nl; 71*nl; quoted (?) by Hemachandra 76*n2. Nysas (th ree) on Hem achandras Brihadvritti, the first identifies most o f Hemachandras quotations 76*n2; second by Udayachandra 79*2, w ith an abridgment which traces most o f Hem achandras quotations 76*n2; 79*311; 76-21; and the third anonymous Nysa called abdamahsrava 79*7. N ysa on the katyana-Sabdmrsana 39*nl; quoted ih Mdhavlya Dhtuvritti 71*31 ; quoted by H em achandra'7 6 *n2. Nysa,;a com. on the Amogha-vritti quoted by Prabbchandrchrya 72*2. Nysa o f Ugrabhuti on Jagaddharas BlabodhinI 91*13. Nyyapachnanas com. on GoyL chandras vritti 110T 7ff. Nyyrthamajush o f Hemahasavijayagai 80*7; its date 80* n2. Padmanbhadatta founder o f th e Saupadma school 111*2 ; personai detail s about him 11 T 2ff ;different from the author o f the P m h od ardivritfi 111*8 ; his d ate*lll*15; the arrangemeot o f his work 111 *n4; nis own com. on it called Saupadmapajik 112*11 ; his other works 112T9ff, ll2 * n l. . Padmanbhadatta, author o f Prishodardivritti, different from the founder o f Saupadma lll* 5 ff. Padmapura 100*4. P hiu mother o f Hemachandra 73*25 ; gives her son over for religious Service 74*7. Palhavas, see Parthians. Pya king, the Tolkappiyam read before, 11*3. Pachatantra story about P inis death by tiger 19*15, 19*n2. Pachavastu, recast o f Jainendra 67*14ff ; its introductory part interpolated 67*20. Pini, 3*nl ; his tenninology pre u pposed by present Prt,ikhyas 5*2 ; , H is place in Sanskrit literature, by Goldstucker, 5*nl ; his trminology compared with that of Yska 6*n2 ; objections to his being placed after Yska considered 7 *6ff; his system based on Vskas tlieory o f the verbal origin o f every noun 9*3 ; 9*Gff ; uses technical words and formulas of earliar writers, some of whom came after ITska 9*14 ; 9*n2 ; 10*n3 ; said to have supplanted the Aindra school 10*15; as also other schools 62*26 ; does not any-where mention Indra by name 10*11, nor the Aindra school 11*28 ; 12*6 ; the school o f 1,0 to 41; authors quoted by 12*n2 ; his date 11 ; posterior to Yska 14*14 ; must have known som e form o f Grihva and Dharma Stras 14* n S ; placed even before Yska by Pandit Satyavrata Ssraarami 14*18; usually but without snfficient evidence assined to 350 B .p. 121; lived prior to A l e s a n t e V invaaion'

O
Oka, Shastri, editor o f Kslirasvinins com. on Araarakosha 52*nl; 57*n2.

P
Padama brother o f Vhaa and m inister to Alpashi 99*6. Padamajar o f Haradatta 26; quoted in th e M dhavya Dhtuv tti and by Mallintba 39*18; quotea Mgha 39*18, 39*n 3; auotes Kirta and Bhattikvya 39*n3 ; based upon K aiyyatas Mahbhshya-pradlpa 40*7,40* n2, 43*7. Padaptha o f kalva 4*17 ; 6*nl. Padma-(or Rudra-) kumra, father of Haradatta 39*11.

 e n e ra l n d e x
17*19 ; liv e d prior to 700 , B. C. 18*3; 18*16; onJy tt negative conclusion about his dataposeible 18*27; tbe known facts about his life 13 ; Slturlva an alias o f 18*34 ; bis motneris name, Dakshl 19*8,19*nl; his teacher said to be Varsha 19*11; has the fourteenpratyhra stras rovealedto him 19*13, 23*18 ; story bout his death by a tiger 19*14, 19*n2 ; character o f Pinis \vork 14 ; his contribution to philology in the Udistras 21*31 ; the technical devices used by him 13 ; his method o f indicating adhikra-stras 24*n2 ; his Paribh shs 25*4; his Dhtuptha S 5 T 4 f f ; his Gaaptha 23*24, 24*2ff, 25*20 ; ree sons for assigning m ost of the Udistras to his authorship 26-7 ; his Vrtikakras pp. 28-32 ; considerable interval separtos him fromK tyvana 27*7, 27*nl ; criticised by K tyyana first in the Vjasaneyi Prti4khya 2 9 1 6 , and later in the Vrtikas 29*20 ; his terminolo g y not strictly adlwred to by K tyyana 30*24ff; 38*nl ; Sicldhntakaumud the raogt popular introduetion to his grammar 46*11 ; he tacitly mployed many Paribhshs current before him 54*21, 54*nl ; history o f his school, review o f, 41 ; 56 7 ; three stages in tho later history o f liis school 5 6T lf ; 59*9 ; 65*28; 69*nl ; 69*18; 69*n3; 70*nl-5 ; 71*1; 75*30; 76*n2 ; 81*28 ; 86*21 ; 86*28 ; 86*30 ; 87*4 ; raodern revival o f Pnini 90*31 ; 107*4 ; 92*16 ; 93*1 ; 93*27 ; later attempts to improve upon him 105*17 ; 105 22 ; 109*1 ;

111*20; 112*1.

P ini, the poet, qiioted in Vallabhadevas Subhshitvali and indentified with Pini the graramarian 13*10. Paribhshs o f Pini and o f later grammarians 25*4 ; 25*nl ; no ancient collection has come down 27*19 \ oom m only aseribed to V y T * i L 54*23 ; invention o f the sjst m o f i 35*10 ; Paribh

shs and Jpakas elaborated betweeo 4 7 0 -6 5 0 A. D. 35*17, 54*27fE, 54*n2f 56*25 ; 40 ; P spini tacitlv em plcyed many current before him 64*21, 54*nl ; P inlya paribhshs borrowed by the Ktantra and other nonPiniya schools 55*10; PribhRh-sutra by katyana 71*14 ; o f Hemachandra 77*26, collected by Bem ahasavijayagani 80*4#; im e for Srasvata 94*11, 1 0 3 $ * , acellection o f by GoyIchandra 110*15 ; o f Sau padma same as P inis 112*30; 112*19. Paribhshvritti (to Mugdhaboda) by Rmachand ra- vidybhs hana 108*21. Paribhshvritti ( Saupadma ) o f Padmanbhadatta 112-211T. Paribhshenduekhara by N gojibhatta 49*1 lfl*, with the autliors com. called abdenduekhara 49*14,55*7; cora.on it called Gad by Vuidyantha 50*13 ; other commentaries 55*9. Purisliads, rules for, fnuned, 4*10. Parivrjakas mentioned in th e Nir ukta 8*nl. Prshadas mentioned in the N ir ukta 8*nl. Paraus, see P ersians. Parthians not unknovvn to Indians even before Alexanders invasion 15.33. Ptajala-charita gives a fan cifu l explanation o f the f act that the Mahbhshya does not notice ali stras o f Pnini 34-n l. Patajali 12*6 ; 13*23 ; 14*1 ; 14*n2; 17*4 ; 18*11 ; giv es the name o f P inis mother 19*8 ; 24*13 ; 26 n l ; 27*21 ; quotes crtam metrical Vrtikas preceding those of K tyyana 28*4; m entions a number o f Vrtikakras follow ing K tyyana 3 l* n l0 ; his date and personai history 20 ; main arguments for assigning hii to 150 B.C. 3 2 * 1 ; speaks o f P ugkpamitra as his conteipprary 32*21; refers to a eiege o f Menander 32*24 ; mentions a fih&cial expedient o f the Mauryas 32.25 ;

18 fSk. Gr.]

13$

Sysiem 0 / Sanskrit Grammit

66*n3. Prabhchandra author o f Prabhvakacharltra 73*a2. Prabhchandrchrya author o f a N ysa on Am oghavritti 72*1. Prabhvakacharitra by Prabhchandra and Pradyumnasri 73*n2. PrabodhachandrikS by Vijjala-bhupati 115*22E; com. on it by Goplagiri 115*30Prabodhapraka, a iva grammar by Blarmapachnana 114.12, U4*19fiE. Pradlpa, 8$e Mahbhshya-pradlpa. Pradyum nasun reviser o f Prabhchandras Prabhvakacharitra 73*n2. Prkrit literature, grow th of, as affccting developm ent o f Sanskrit 34*20. Prakriykaum udl o f ltmachandra S30 ; the modei for B hattojie Siddhnta-kaumudT 45*10; comm ented upon by Vitt.halSchrya in the Prasda 45*14 ; by eskakrisha in tho Praka 45*25 ; and by othcrs 46*n l ; an, abridg ment of it by authors pupil 5T ii 1 ; 72*21 ; 109*3. Prakriyamai by Dhanevara 100*3. Prakriypraka o f eshakrisbna 45*25. * Prakriyaagraha o f Abhayachandra, recast o f katyana ab dnusana 72*11. Prasda o f Vitthalehrva 45*14 ; its date 45*16 ; quotes Narendrchrya 95*24. Pratparudra o f Telufigaa 101*10* Prtikhyas, prim itive, presuppose art o f writing 4*30 ; present post-PinIya 5*2 ; their eontribution to Science o f grammar 5*1 O l; their technical terms identifiod by Dr. Burnell vrith those o f Aindra school 5-n2t 82*13 ; show Vaska ija the raaking 5*19 ; 6 * n l; 9*n2 ; closely related to Tolkappiyam 11.6, and to K stantra 82*13 ; 12*6 ; 66-U2, 8 6 * n l; Vjasaneyi Prtikbva th e first gramiuatical work o f KStySyana, tee under V jasaneyi.

a detailed exposition o f his tim e g iv en in Indische Studien 33*10 ; 33*11 ; vindieates Pini ajgainst the attacks o f-K styyaiia 33*18 ; offcen uafair to K tyyana 33*20; hie imparalled sty le 33*21 ; his ish fis 33*15 ; 35*3 ; 54*22 ; 59*10 ;

69*18; 76*n2; 103*3.

Pathak, professor, 10-nl ; 14*n2 ; 3 9 .n l ; proves the historical existenoe o f P jyapsda G4*6fT ; his paper on Jaiua katyana 84.14; 69*8fE, 76*nl ; his arguments for th e date o f Jainendra 64*16f ; 65*n2 ; 67*24; 72*nl ; 72*nS ; 72 *n3. Patrapuja 45-29. Pauranic accouhts o f frontier tribog not rnere im aginative fabrications 16*6. Paushkarasdi mentioned by Ktyyana 31*n7. Pyagua, sec Vaidyantha Pyagua. Persians not unknown to Indians before A logun ders invasion 15*33 ; mentioned as raercenuvy tighters by Pini 17*24 blotted out as a political po\ver in 329 B.C- 17*26. P eterson on P n in is date 13.511; 13*n2; 46*n3 ; 53*n2 ; 54*1 ; 65*4 ; 67*n2 ; 79*n5 ; 89*n2. P hilology, scienoe of, revolutionizd by discovery o f Sanskrit by modern Europe 2*24 ; its postulate Yskas theory o f the rootorigin o f every noun 9*4. P hitstras of ntanavchrya 27*12, 27*u4. P bonetics, hianuals on, 4.12P iseh el on the identitioation of Pini th grammarian and P ini the p o e 13*10. Plataafie 16*2. Prabandha chintmai by Merutug ich ry a 73*n2. Prabandhakoa by Rjaekhara 73*n2. Prabh, Vaidyanthas com. on Bhatiojis abdakaustubfia 50*15. PrabhKchandra quotecf by Pfijvapsda 66* n t ; attem pt to prove that th e name is ftctitious 6*18;

Gentral lnd*x
Pratyhra stras, fourteen. re* vealed to Pini t by Ood iva 10.13 ; 2 2 4 5 ; means to produc brevity and terseness 23.26 ; Vsjasaneyi-Prti4khya Pratylirus same as P i in is 29*n2; their number reduced by Chandragomin 69*15; Pinlya retaihed by Jainendra 66*5 ;o f katyana 70-13;o f Malayagixi.Sl*6; not used by Hemachandra 81-6; Pinlya dispensed with by Ktantra 8 6 * 2 3 f; their upe without its by the Srasvata 04*5 ; 118*23 ; o f Bopadeva 106*6, called Sanihrastrna 106*23 o f Pini retaiued by Saupadma 111 *2i. Prauha-manoramS BhaU ojis own com. on the Siddhnta-kaumud 47.7 ; distinguishes betweon the two authors of the Ks&k 3 8 -n l^ acknow!edges indebteuness to R pamala 46*nl ; dovs seunt justice to he rnemory of eshakrisha 47*1 ; its abridgment called Bla-manonim 47*8; Jagannthas com. on it called the Manoramkuchamardinl 47*18 ; another com. on it by Nge4a called abdaratna 47*18, 49*16 ; 107*7. Piishodardivvitti o f Padmanlbhadatta 111-8; its date 111*9, ll!* n l. Pritbvldhara, Mahmahopdhyyft5 author o f sub-com, on Vardharnnas Ktantra-vistara 88*21. Pivapda an alias o f Devanandl 63*25 ; 64*n2; mentioned as the founder o f a Dravia-sagha 65*4 ; possibiiity o f other namesakes of his 65*10 ; 69*20 ; 70*8. PundarTfeksha writes sub-com. to Sripatis supplement to Ktantra 90*21. Pujarja the earliest com. on the Srasvata-rakriy 96* 15 ; per sonai details about him 96*33ff : his date 96*16, 97:7 ; his works 97*8f 99*nl. Puyasundlragai 79*24ff.

probablj Patajatis own patron 32*28. *

R
*

Racea, impact of different, as in flu e n c e ; study o f grammar 2*31. Ragbfcnandanaili romni 84*25Rftghuntlm author of the Laghubhshya on the Srasvata 103*1 ; pupil o f Bliaptoji 103*6. RaghunSthabhattn father o f Jayakriahua 48.4 * 51*11. Rjadhanyapura 79*n2. Rja4ekhara*sPrabandhako4a73*n2. Rjataragilaccount o f thevicisaitndes in the text o f the Maltbhshya 13*27, 13*n 5 ; 33*25, 41*17. Rajavade, Vishvantb. K ., his paper on Pinis date 17*9 If. Bujen Irall Mitra on the Identifica tion of Yavanas with lonian Greeks 15*21 ; shows that Patajali is not the same as QonardIya or Goikputra 33*2. Rmabhadra-nyyflakra 107-32. Rmahhattas Vidvat-pradodhinl 101*3 ; personai details about the author 101*0 H ; his works

101*16*ff,

Purusbotfama 97 23.
Pttrushottamadevas vritti on Udi quoted by Ujjvaladatta 54*15.

Pnshpamitra alluded to as contemporary by Patafijali 32*21, and

Rmabhattl, see VidvatprabodhinT. Rmachahras Prakriykaumudl 30 ; his date 45*6 ; personai de tails about him 45*6 ff. Rlmaohandra, commentator on Ktantravnttipajik 89*8 ; 90*16. Rraachandras couimentary on the Saupadma 112*14. Rmachandra-chakravarti vrritea sub-com- to SrlpatPs supplement to Ktantra 90*20. Rmacbandr4ramas Siddhntachandrika 102*11 ; commentaries on it 102*13 ff ; the authors own abridgment o f it 102*19. Rinadsa 90*15. Rmadeva the Ydatji king o f Devagiri 105*4. Ramkntas com. on SanpadmaGaaptha 113*2. Rmakra grandfather o f l*oke&kara 102*14. Rmakrishchrya gradfath of VittHalchSrya 45* 22*

#4

t 4*

Systtms of Sanskrit Grammar

com. on the Ahdhyyt 47*12 ^ pjrobably not completed by the aathor 47*14, 47*n3 ; com. on it called Visbaml, by N gea 49*18 ; another com. called Prabli, by Vaidyantha 50*15 ; 107-7. Sabdamahrava-nysal an anonymous com. on Hem achandias Brihadvritti 79*7. Sabdnutoana o f Hemachandra presumab]y utilised by Bhattoji for his Siddhntakaumudl 46-22. abdnufsana of Malavugiri 80*31 ff. abdnusana of kalyana (Jaina) not a very ancient work 26-3 ; later than Jainendra 68-9; meant for vetmbaras G8T3 ; mentioned in the Gaaratnamahodadhi 68*16 ; in the Mdhavya-Dhtuvritti G8-17 ; commentaricfl on it G8-14 ; accesBory treatises on it G8-14; not the same as ancient kat,yana 52 ; proof for this 69 n l ; quoted as abhin aaa by Bopadeva 08-31. abdmisana-Bnhad vritti, Hema chandras com. on his own 'ibdniitsana 76-17 ; three dilf-'rent N ysas on the same 76-21, 79-2, 79-7 ; its quotations mostly identified by the first Nysa 76-2 ; contains Siddharjas ras'asti 77*3 if; its abridgment perhaps by Hemaohandra him self 76*8 ; comprehends also accessory treatises of the school 77-28; phuhik on it 78-6 ft ; a Laghu-nysa on it 79*1. abdaratna, N gojis com. on the Prauhamanoram 49-16; a com., , Bhvaprakik, on it by Vaidyantha 50-15abdrthachandrik by H asavija. vagai 100-27. Sabdusiddhi, Mabdavas com. on Durgasiriihas vritti 89*10. Sadnandas SubodhinI 102* 14f. Sages, the three, 34*11. Sahaj aklrti s Srasvataprakriyvr ti ka, 100*21 ff ; his date 100*24, 100-nl. Shi Salem, emperor o f Delhi, honours Chandraklrti 98*17 98*nl.

Rmnanda quoted by Durgdsa 107*30.

Rraadarmans com* on the MadhyaSiddhntakauidl 51*10. Rraasimha patron o f NgojibhaUa 50*1. Bftmlrfraina, see Bhanudlkshita. Rmatarkavgl^a, commentator on Mugdhabodha 107-24; his supplement to Mugdhabodha 108-10 ; his Udikotia 108*22. Ragciirjras edition o f akaras Sarvasiddhnta-sagraha 105'n3. Rafigoii-dks hita brother o f Bhaoji 46-24 ; 48*nl. Raaagagdhara 49-27. Rsavata another name for the Jau mara school 109-32; quotedin Bharatas com. on Bhat.ikvya 110*1. RasavatI JumaranandIs vritti on Kramadldvaras Sakshiptasra 109*31. Rshrakta 69-15. Ratalma 79-n3. * Ratnkara 101*35. Rvamukuta mentions Chndra Lignusana 60 20. Recasts o f Ash;dbyyl 29 ; 57*2. Rigveda, grammatical speculationg in 1-25 ; its Sarahit anterior to Pini 14*12. Roman conqueat, infiuencihg study o f Greek grammar 2-n2. Royal Asiatic Society, the Bombay Branch, Journal of, 35*n2. RpagDBvmin'e Harinmmritam 113*17. Rupaml o f Vimalasarasvati m en tions Vararuchi alias Ktyyana as author o f Udistras 27*nl ; it is a recast o f Ashtdhyyt 44*2 ; its date 44*5, 44*n l 5 iti arrangement of topics 44*6 ft. ; in* debtedness to it acknowledged by Bhattoji Drkshita 45*nl. Rpaiidhi, an abridgment o f SSk a lja n a Sabdnutisanu, by Daypla 72-23.

Ruv&li 5M6. Badra(or Padma*)kuraara, father of Haradatta 39-11. 5 Sabaraavjnin 53*20Babdakaustubha by Bhattoji,. a

G m & al in & t*

i# t

Saiva grammars 114-1 t k 16-31; 17-31 ; 18-12; tee also Scythiana 18TB. lk alya, Padaptba b yt 4*18; men tioned in th e Nirukta 8 n l ; mentioned by P ini 12*u2 , quoted by K tyyana 31*n4. akapGni mentioned in tbe Nirukta 8 .n l. katSyana (aneient) quoted by name in Bopadevas M ugdhabo dha 10*n3 ; mentioned by Pnini 12*n2, 68*25 ; often considered author o f tho Uudlstras 25*24 ;

ltura PtTtaPs nativeplace 19*1; identified with Lahaur in STusisf2&1 valley 19*2 ; now an obscure and deaerted place 19*6. llltu rly a an alias of Pnini 18*34 \ 18n l. Salemsbab, Empero, 93*8. Samantabbadra qucted by PtSjya-

pd*. 66*n2.

Samantabhaci a s i p ai on the Chintmai 72*7/ Sam&sackakra 51*17. Smaramr, Satyavratu, on P inis date 14* i t . Samavasundaiastis com. on the Kaipasutrns 63*2, 63*n2. no work o f the atdejot aknSamhits, Taittirlya, grammatical yana now extant 26*5 ; quotcd by speculations in, 2 2; the language K tyyan 31*n 3; mentioned in o f Saiiihi M different from that of the Mahbhshya 25*n5, differ Brhmaas, 3 9 ; the Sum hitl of ent from later ( Jaina ) nka-aHik, Sama, and Krisha*Yajus yana 52 ; 80 31 ; 81*8; crulited anterior to Pini 14* 12with the authorship of the Krit Bangula, a town dtstroyed by prakaraa as incorpotated in tlie Alexander aiM raentipned by Ktantra 84*24, 87*20. Pnini 17*llff. katyana (Jain ) Prof Patlmks Saghopati or Baghtvcra 98*29 ; paper on, 64 14 ; 64-n4 ; his 99*8. date 65*1, 69 12 ff ; his inSagralm, an extensive work o f clebtediess to Jainendta 65*2; Vy(i 31*18, and described as also author o f the Amogbavritti the basis for Muhbhshya 31*n9. Sais, sce Technical terrns. 69*13 ; was a vetmbara Jain Ssltala, see SaDgala. ?3*nl ; nature o f his abdnuSakala, Prince who founded the bana 53; draws fr ee ly upon (ity of Bangala 17*13. the Jainendra 69*20; many o f his akarchryas Sarvasiddbntastras same as P inis 69*22, sagraha edited by Eagohrya 6 9 'n3, or on!y slightly changed 70*1, 70*nl ; indebtedness to 105*n3; his rlra-bhshya 38*22* akhabasti insription 65*6. Chandragunin 70*2ff, 70 n2 ; t.> Skbya-kSriks 64-20. Jainendra 70*5, 70*n3, 70 n4; Sakshiptasra o f Kiaraadlvara quoteB Indra 70-7 ; the *extent 108*82 ; its relation to the A sbtand arrargem m t o f his &abdhyyT 109*10 ff ; J urnai a n a td fs dntdsana 70*10ff; the authors vritti on it 109 7ff. quoted by him 7 0 .n 5 ; his f rantic effort to secure brevity illustrated Sanskrit grammar, schools o f, near71*6; his technical term inoiogy ly a dozen 1*10 ; writers on, at least three hundreds 1*11 ; 71-7; other works by akatyana treatises on, over a thoueand 1*13; 54; comm. on his abdanu^Esee under schools. sana 71*30ff ; recasts of it ntanavehrya, author o f th e 72*10ff; later ousted by HemaPhitsutras 27*12 ; mentioned as & cbandras abdnusana 73*3, relaitiveljr modern writer 27*n4. which however freely draws Saptaati, coui. on, by N gea 49*7. upon it 76*13, 7 6 .n l, 76*n2. Saptavarman reccived revelation o f Ssketa besieged by Menander 32*23. Aiodra grammar from K rttikeya 10*22 ; see also Sarvavarman* kta grammars 114* 1 Off.

141

$ystems o f Sanskrit Grammar

Bra by Kdlntha, a com. on the

PrakrifSkatim udl 40*hl. Sffrapradpik by JagannStha 9 8 1 ,

SarasvatI reveals Srasvata stras

x 95*5.
rTra-bbshya 33*22, Srtha 105 5.

100<8.

* >

Sra-SiddbntkannfdT o f Varadarja, an abridgment o f the Sid d hntakaumu.11 51*4. Srasvata school 43.29;81*24;its date 73 ; its original extent 92*nl ; tw o reoensions o f its Strapfha 92*l ; its special features 74 ; its technical terms 94*116 ; no paribhshs to it 94*21; and no U dis 94*29 ; the school not mentioned bv Bopadeva 92*4, not fcnown to Hem achm dra 92*6; its traditional founder 75^ vrtikas to it 94*31, 05'2; com. on it by V itthala 89.2; inost o f the comm. o it later than 1450 A . D. 92.8, and com e from Northern India 92.14; comm. on it independentlv Tf the Sarasvataprakriy 78 \ the school encouraged by Muhammedan m iers of India 93 4fT, ils dbridgments 103.216; a gencral review o f its history 80 ; 4no supplcraents to it 104.6 ; tho school aHected by modei n revival o f Pini 92*20 ; its present status 104 21. Srasvatahhshya of K & nltha 100*96. Siasvata-dlpik, see Srasvatavykarana-d hu hi k . Srasvata-mlastiaptba 9 2 .n l. Srasvataprakriy o f Anubhtf* svarpachrya 9 2 .h l, 76; its straptha not the oiiit& l fitra-' pha 92 n l ; commentators on it 96.206, 77 ; comrnentaries on Si .svata indepndeutly o f this 78 ; vrtikas tmbeded in its straptha 95*96: ; com. on it by Kshem endra 95.17 ; by Amritabhrati 95.20. Srasvataprltkrivvrtika by Sahajaklrti 100.24 ; its date 100.24.

SarvaBiddhSntasagraha o f afika* rcharya, ed. by Rafigchrva

105*n3. arvavarman 10*3 ; 83*nl ; founder o f the Ktantra 64 ; his patron tavhana 82.25, 83.4, 82*n3 ; o v id e n c e fo r lator interpolations in his original straptha 65; 87*176; the Kiitprakaraa not by him 84.186, as also certain other sections 8 5 .5 6 , 8 5 .1 6 6 ; nature o f his work 65 ; the extent o f his work 87*36. Satabalksha m entioned in the Nirukta 8*nl. ata^lok by Bopadeva 195-13. tavhana, patron o f arvavarman 82.25, 8 2 .n3. Satl mother o f Nge^a 49.35. Sat-vritti on Udis quoted by Ujjvaladatta 54.15 Satvarja disciple o f Bhnudlkshita * 4 8 .n l. Satynanda, teaeher o f Itvarnanda the*author o f Mabbhshyapradlpa-vivaraa 43.3. Satyaprabodhabhattraka 97.18. Satyavrata SmaramI on P ninis date 14.17. Sp-ubliava 3 5 .n l ; 41-20. fifMingas m entioned by Patafijali 3 1 .n l0 f * o n e o f their vrtikas <|uoted by the R4ik 37 11. Saupadma sOhiool absorbs PinTya * UTlistme 54*9., Saupadma school o f Padm anlbha4dattft 90 ; its special features 91 ; its arrangement l l l . n 4 ; com mentaries on it 92 ; its present status 94. Sanpadma-makaranda by Vishnumidra 112*15. Stnipadmapajik, Padmanbhas own com. on the Saupadma 1 1 2 *10 . Saurjabhagavat m entioned by P at ajali 31.nlQ. Savi Jeysiiha in vites N gea for an avam edha 49.29. Bvaa or Mdhava author o f the Dhtuvritti 52.286. *

Srasvatapraeda
bhata 9 8 .2 4 6 : 98.n2.

by Vsudevaits date 98.26,

Bi asvatavykaraa-dhuhik or Saraevata-dlpik bv Megharatna

9 9 .1 4 6 . *

Gmtralirifck
i : ......... ....

MJ

Schools o f Sanskrit grammar, ia h a p i patron of l a g a n n s t h a 46nearly dozeu 1,4:0; Aindra school o f Grammarians by Dr. Burnell Sheshagiri Bhasti 39a2; 40 a t . . n l ; the DTkshita aohool 48 n l , SiddhanandIquoted by skatyana 38. The school o f Pini 10 to 70* n5. 41 ; review of its metory Siddhntachandrik by R im a 4 1 ; three stages in its k te r hischandrdrama 102 4 0 ; |t f com torv 56.11fE. Chndra school 42 mentaries 102*186:; the authors to 46; its branebing off from own ahndgm ent o f it called the P i in ly a school 56.27; ts Lagbu-SSdhntachandiik vritb later history 4 6 ; w hy disa com. 102-191L appeared from ldia 8 1 .2 8 ff. Siddhntakaumu 11 of Bhatf,oji The Jainendra school 47 50 ; modelied upon Kroacbandras its k te r history 50. i The Prakriy3kaumucU 45 10 ; importanco o f the Siddhntakauschool o f kaiayana 51-55; its mudl 31 ; its presumed indebtedk te r hiatory 55 l a r l y secta ness to Hemachandra abdmirian schools 4262. Rise o f 4sana 46 22 ; authors ovtn com. popukr schools of grammar on it in two recensions 47.7ff ; 56.34 * 63-^80 Hemachoodra com. TattvabodhinT by Jimnenschool 56~b2 ; its k te r historv drasaras\ati 47.25, with a stip62 ; limited influence 80*221?. plement 1>y Jayaknsha 4 8 .4 ; i lie Ktantra school 63~72; its com. on itb y N sgojibhatta 49.15; early history 67 ; its history its abridgraents 34 ; its rek tion in Bengal 71 ; in Kt. mir 872. to the Ilaimakaiunudl 7 9.2I f ; The Srasvata school 73-^80 j 109.3. general review of its liistory 80*v The school o f Bopadeva 81-85 ; Siddbuntar^tna by Jinendu alia its later histoiy 84. T he Jaumara Jinaratna 102*27. school 86-89 ; its present status Siddlmrja, see Javasiiiiha. 89. The Saupadma tchool * Siddhasena quotcd by Pjyapda 90-94 ; its present status 94, 66*n2 ; not a grammarian at ali according to Hemachandra 66.22. Later sectarian schools 95-97. Scythian im asions as afiiecting deSiksh ( o f Pini) not a very an velopment o f Sanskrit 34.2$,; cient w oik 27*12 ; a stanza from it found in tho Mahbhshya th ep eoplenotnn kn ow nto Iniarik before A lezanders mvaaion 7*15, 27*n5; the sam e com15 .3 3 ; 17*32 ; 4h ek first kig m ented upon by Bhartrihari Deioces 1 8 4 . - 27rii5 ; and rjuoted by K um frila Sectarian schools, earty 42-62*4 27n5 i 60*30. later 95-97. ilhra 67*4. Senaka mentioned by Pini 12mS. Singaror(^ Srigaverapttra. esha-Krisha author of Praks'a * Siradevas treatk e on Paribhshs on Rhiachandras Prariycauquoted in the Mdhavlya-Dhtnraudi 4 5 .2 5 ; personai d etfils viifcti 5 5 6. aout him 45.27f; the precepishyalekh, poem by Ch&ndrator o f Bhattoji 46-3, who is howgomin (?) 61*6. ever n o t gratef ul to his memory Siuplavadla 27*3. * 46.29 ; his date cir. 1600 A . I). 46.4 ; Jaganutha his sons pupil kuprabodha by Pujarja *97*8. 47.2, 4 8 * n t iva revealed the pratyshra stras Sesha-Nrisimbasuri father o f Seshato Pihl 19*13 ; 23*18 ; 83*6 ; Krisha 45*26. (ass vow els) 114*22Sesliarja, m Patajali. ivabhatta father o f Ngojibh&fta 49*34.' esbatkiinaids com. on the Fariivnanda 5M 0* * bhshendu4ekhara 55*9.

t f ,.'

yst*m s lB f a m & tit ra m m r

--------- i. ,jk...................

6ivarma Cbakravarti writes subcom. to rlpatis supplement to Ktantra 90$1.

Siwairj alias Srasirhba o f Jodhapur 8 0*lfr 80*n l.

Skandagupta 58*27. toka-vrtikas, their number 31*23, their authorship diseussed, 81*utl.
Smith, Vincent, E ailv H istory of India, 17*5 ; 17*16 ; 8 2 * n 3 ;9 l* n l. Somachandra, second name o f Hemacbandra 74*12. Somadevas 'version o f Jainendra 65*18; his abdrnavachandiik 65.19, 67*2 * , his version earlier and truer 65*21ff,G5*n2 ; personai details about him G7*2ff. Speeches, cantact o f different, as influencing study o f giaminar
2 *2 1 .

Sphotyana montionevl by Pnini 12*n. rauta-autras o f Ktyyana 29*nl. rvaa Bclgoa 39 n l ; 71 n l . rTdatta quotcd by Pjyapdi 66*n2. ndatta grandfather o f Padmanabhadatta 111*5. ridhara Chakravartis com. on tbe Saupadma 112*13. rTkanthacharita by Makha 84*22, rlmla fam ily 96*33. rigaverapura 50*1. rlpatis supplement to the K tantra 90*18 ; sub-eommentaries on it 90*20f ; furiher supplement to the supplement 90*24. rtpati grandfather o f Padman bhadatta 111*7. feplraga teacher o f Mdhava 98*20. rdesha, ee Patafijali, rl vallabha-vchanchrvas com . on Hemachandras Lignutisana 79*48#. rutapia auoted by Hemacbandia 76*n2 ; also in the Am oghavi itti 78* n2.

Sthavira-Jinendra, m Jinendsabuddhf. Sthiramati, translatdr of Chndra te sts in Tibetan language 6M 9* Suhandhu 18*22 ; 14*1. Subhshitvali o f Vallabbadeva ouotes Prtini the poet 13*7, 13*n3. Subodhik, Arautabhratia com. on the Sras\ataprakriy 97*14 ; also aseribed to vidvevarbdhi, to Salyaprub dhabhattraka, etc. 97-17. Subodhik or Dip k by Chandrakliti witli an iinportant p ras'asti at the end 98*7fft Subodhinl of Sadnanda 102*14f. SubodhinI hy G opllagiri on Vijjalabliupatis Prabodhaprakda 115*30. Sudarana an alias o f Haradatta 40-nl* SudhhiharI, com. on, by Ngea 49*7. Srasimha al as Siwairj o f Jodhapur 80*lf ; 80*nl. Sutra-form not new toP rm 13*nl ; possihly due to scarcity o f w n ting matmial 23*6. S>apna-Vsavadattam of Bhasa 13*28. Sydisamuchcha} a o f Amarachandra 80*10f*

T
Taitiki mentioned in the Nirukta 8*nl. Taittirya Sranyaka, 4*n2. Taittirya Samhit, grammatical speculations in 2*2 ; speaks of Indra as the first of grammarians 10*24, 10*n4. Takakusu 64*20. Tantra-vrtika 2*nl ; 27*n5. Trntha, his account about the Aindra school 10^17. TaraginT, HarshakhtTs com. on his own DhtuptUa for Sras vata 103*9. * Tarkasagraha 50*23. Tarkatilakabhattchrvas com. on the Srasvata 102*22; his date

Sthaulsbtlvi mentioned Nirukta 8*nl.

in the

102*26.

General Index
Tattvabodhinl by Jnendrasarasvati, a com. on Siddhntakaumudl 47*25; supplcmented by Jayakrisba 4 8-4; its nature 48*2fl:, and date 48*8. Tattvachandra, Jayantas abridg ment o f the Pralriykaumudl 51*nl. Tattvadlpik by Loke4akara 102*15Tattvrtharjavriika 63*n4. Technical devices used by Pini 13. Technical terms (Sajs) of primitive Prti4khyas 5 1 3 ; identifiod w ith those o f Aindra school by Dr. Bnrncll 5 n2; of Yaka and Pini compared 6*n2 ; prePinlya not ali necessarily o f the Aindra school 11*25 . those of KtySyana not always t hc eame as those of Psini 30*24ff ; of DevanandI 66*5. 6 6*n l;of katyana 71*85; of the Ktanira 86*26 ; of the Srasvata 94*6, 94*1 lff ; o f later sectanan schools 106*16; o f Bopadeva 106*20, 106*n2 ; of Saupdina, same as of Pini 111*20, ll2 * 2 ff; of the Harinmrmita 113-23A: ; o f Prabodhaprakia 114*22LfTibetan translations o f Chndra treatises 58*11; 61*18; of the Ktlpa-Dhtsutra 90*5. o d a I02*n2. Tolkappiyam, the Tamil grammar, full of Aindra terminology 11*3, 82*12 ; read in the Pava K iugs assembly 11*4 ; is closelv related to Ktantra to KachchSyanas Pli grammar, and to the Prti4khyas 11*7. Trikadesha U l*n 2. Trilochana ( not = Trilochanadsa ) author o f the Uttarapari&sha to ripatpg supplement to Ktantra 90*22f. Trilochanadsa quoted by ViUhalsebrya 45*19; his Ktantravrittipajik 89*1 ff ; quoted by Bopa deva and Vihala 89*2 f ; per sonai details about l im 89*5f; subcom. on his work 89*7ff, 19*16 ; distinot from the author o f the Ktantrottarapari&&hta 8 9 * n l; quoted by K avi rja 90*14 ; different from Trilochana 90 22.

U
Udayachandra author o f an extensive Nyasa on Htni&chandra's Brihadvritti 79*2, 79*nl ; bclougs to Ch, tOrna achthha 78*33. Udayana or Uddaim eourt pandit of Prutparrdra 101*11. LdayasaiiMigya author o f the phulk on the Prffkrit cbapter of Hemachandras Brihadvritti 78*25. Ddavasing of Udepur 93*13. Uddana, m l Udayana. Uddyota, see MahbhshyapradIpod dyota. Udyna same as Yusufzai valley 19*3. Ugrabhuti author o f Nysa on Jagaddharas Blabodiiinl 91*14 ; his probable identification with his namesakc of cir. 1000 A. D. 91*18. Ugrabhuti teaeher of nandapla and prohably the* same aa the author o f the Nysa 91*15.

Ujjvaladattas vritti on Pinlva Udiputras 54*11 ; edited y Aufrecht 54*12 ; quotes earlier vrittis 54*14 ; mentions ChndraLignudsana 60*20 ; quoted bv Padmanbhadhtta 111*13,1 ll*n 2 ; 112* 29 .
Udiko^a (to Mugdhabodha) by krnatarkavttga 108*22. Udiptha 39, see Udistrae. Udistras of Pini 21*31 ; commonly aseribed to kayann 25*246:, 25*n4 ; their technical terms and annhandhas same as Pinis 26*10 * , probably regarded as Pini's by Ktyyana 26*18, 26*ni ; not ali belonging tu Pini 26*23 ; probably revised by Kfcyyana 26*27; tradi*t(onally assigned to Vararnchi alias Ktyyana 27*6 ; P inis Udi sutias absorbed by other schools 54*8; Ujjvaludattas v r itti on them 54*11 ;otner ccmmentators ! 54-146F; Chndra Udi 60*10, ' its mode o f presentation 60*14; that o f kayana 71*15; of Hemaehandra 77*23, w ith vivaraa or vritti on it 77*31; of Ktantra in tro recenslons; that of Durga-

i*[Sk,Gr.]

146

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

klya 31*n4. Vjft8aiieyi Samhit 29*14. Vairata 42*13. Vkyapadlya aecount of vicissi tilde* in the Mahbhshva text 13*20, 13*n4, 33*5 41*15 ; states that Mahbhshya was a summai y o f V ydis Sagraha 31*n9 ; rncntions Baiji and others 35*nl ; by Bhartrihari 27 ; its nature 4 1 *llff ; giv es the earlicst reforence to Chndra and m en tions bis predecessors 41190', 57-20 ; 42-n3 ; 55*23 ; 59*nl. Valhibhatleva in the Sublishitvali quotes Pini the poct 13 7. Vlmki-Rmyita, commentary on, by N gea 49*G. Vrnana, one o f tlie authors of the Kik 35*n2, 3G-8, ; his centi ibntion to the Kik distinguished from that o f Jayditya 36-4, 3 6 n l ; minister of Jayplda of Kmli*, som etimes idenlied with Jayditya 3G*21 ; quoted by Vitthalchrya 45-20 ; identified with tlie author o f a Lignusana 54*2, quoted by Hemachandra 7G*ri2 ; and by Bhattoji 107*9 : see Jayditya. Vmanchrya author o f a Lingnusantt 53*28 ; identified w ith author of the Kik 54*2 ; ear lier writers mentioned by him 53*30f ; mentions Chndra Lignusana 60*20. Vmanendra-sarasvati 47-2G. VamTvdanas com. 011 Goylchau<iras vritti 110*20. Vanamiis Kalpavyakaraotpatt i prastva 82*n2. Varadarja author o f abridgments o f the Siddhntakaumud 51*4 ; 62*21 ; 104*11. V lravanea author o f Am nasriti, a crn. on the Prakriy' kaumudl 46*nl. Vararuchi (alias K tyyana) said to have been at first a follow er o f the Aindra school 1 0 1 5 ; mentioned by Vimalasarasvati as, author o f the Undistras 2 7 .n l, 27*6; 111-nl; 53*24; 53*30; 53*n2 85*n l ; credited with authorship of the Ktantra-kritprakarana

sirhhaO O l, and that curront in Kmlr 8 5 n 2 ; none for Sarsvata 94*20, 103*8 ; of GoyIchandra 110*14 ; o f Padmanbhadatta the f.onnder *hf Saupadma 112*19. U divntti (Saupadma) o f Padrnanbhadatta 112*24 ; its arrangement ll2*25fT. IJpadeamlkarik of Lukshmlv&llabha 63*3. Updhvva qu<ted by H emachan dra 76* n2 ; ftec K ai vy ata. Upala quoted by Hemachandra 76*n2. Upasargavtti of Chandragomin 60*18 ; fonnti in Tibetan version only. 60*26. Uragula 101 *9.

V
Vdava mentioned bv Patafijali 31-nlO. Vdivlja alias JayHsimha 11, f ellow-flt.udent o f I)aypla 72*24, and a Chlukya emperor 72*25. Vhaa father of Madana and hrother of the im iiister Pndama 99*7. Vaidya conmuinity of Bcogal as producing rnany wiiters on K tantra 90*25Yaidyantha Pyagua, pupil of Ngea 48*nl ; coruraents upon abda-kftufttubha 47*23; his works 32, 50-31F, 55 9 ; personai d e tails about him 50*5fl*. Vaishava grammars 113*15, 114*3 ; now current only in Bengal 114*9. Vaiyakaraas, mentioned in the Nirukta B*nl. Vaiykaraasi ddbntabhusb aa of Kotlabhatt:a48*nl, 48* 14t 55*24 ; com. on it hy Ngea 55*26. Vaiykaraasiddhntamaju8h of N gea 49*20 ; a com. on it by Vaidyantha* called Kala 50*14. Vjapyyana raentioned by K tyyna 31*n5. Vtijasancyi Prtikhya, the first rammatical work o f Ktyyana 29*11 ; posterior to and based upon Pini 29* n2 ; some o f its rules repeated in an emended form as vrtikas 30.5, 30 n l ; refer to katyana 31*n3, and

General In d ex

*47

84-26, 87*2;, vrilh a com. on the same 85-n l. Vardhunna author o f Gaarvtnamahodadln 52-12, quoies KshTrasvmin 52*4 ; his date 53*15% 88*n4 ; not same as the author of Ktantravi stara 88*20ff. Vardhamna author of Ktantravistara 88*20 ; quoted hy Bopa deva 88-23 ; his piobable date 88*22 ; distinct from author of Ganaratnamahncfcdhi 88*n4; 89*4. Varasutras of Chandragomin 60*13, 60*29, 60*n2, Appendix i. Vargha, said to be the teacher of Pini 1911. Vrshy&gaya an alias of Ivarakrisha 64-n4. Vrsbyyai mentioned in the Nir ukta 8 -n l. Vrtikas of Ktyyana 14*5 ; their number 30*1 ; some anetnended statement o f Vjasaneyi ?rtikhya rules 30*5, 30*nl ; proae and matricai 30 L 5. Vrtikakura quotcd ty Hemachan dra 76*n2 ; $ee Ktyyana. Vrtikakras before Ktyyana especially the loka-vrtikakras 28-4; the question about the authorsUip of lliese last, discussed 31 - n l l ;after Ktyyana3T20iT, 31-nlO Vsavadatt, an khyyik nientioned in the Mahbh&hya 13-20Vsudevabhattas Srnsvataprasda 98-24H:; his date 98*26, 98*n2. Vasu rat preceptor o f Bharrihari and disciple o f Chandra 59*1. Vtsyyana quotes GonardIya and Goikaputra 33*4. Vffyaagachcbha 80-9. Vedgas, 6 -nl ; 12 -n2 . Vedas, gramniaticsl speculations in, 2; A retie Home in the 3-n2 ; collected into fam ilybooks 4*9 * , 611i ; liels o f difficult wordg from them collected 8*7; nature and utility o f their study 8*17. Vedic Gods, their naraes 8*9; their cosmological funetions 8*18. VeI mother o f Vaidyantha 50*6. Vidvatprabodbinl or KmabhatrtT of KSmabhaUa 101*3; tbe xnany

p r a s astis em bodiedin it 101 * 56 :; 101 * 2411. Vidvvglda quotes Durgdsa 107 * 32 . Vidyfvinoda, father o f N yya I inchnana 110 *17 . Vijaynanda teacher o f H afisavijayag?riii 100 *29 . Vij jain -bhpati s Prabodhach&ndrik 115 *2211 ; personai details about hirn l l 5 *27 ff. Vikrama, f rther o f Vijjala-bhpati 115 * 27. Vik;ram&ditya l l T n l . Vimalasarasvati mentions Vararuobi ali&s Ktyyana as author o f Udistras 27 * 2 ; 27 *nl; author o f Rupaml 44*2 ; his date 4 4 *5 ; 4 4 m ; quoted by AmritabhSrati 44 *nl. Vi'tyaka, father of Kaghuniha 103 * 4. ViDayasundarn, teacher o f Megharatna 99 *15 . Vinayavijayagai author of Haimalaglniprakriy 79*12 ; pupil o f Klrtivijavagani 79*13 : bis date 79 -13 . 79 *n2 . Vincent Smith, Early H istory o India, 17*5 ; 17 *16 . Vlrcvara, preceptor o f Jaganntha 4 7 -nl, and son of eBhkrishna 4 8 *nl. . Vishaml by N gojibhatta, a com. on Blm ttojis abda-kaustubha 49 -18 . # VishmnHr&s com. Saupadmama* karanda 112 *15 . Vishu-puraa 16 *7 . Vi*irntavidydhara quoted by H e machandra 76 *n2 . Vivakarma, author o f Vykriti, & com . on Prakriy$kaum udl 46 *n l. Vi^vapraksa l ll * n 2 . V iveivara-dlkshita, see BhnudTkshita. V i 4ve 4 varSbdhi 97 * 17 . V itthala, com. on Srasvata, quotes Trilochanadsa 89 * 2. Vitthalchrya author o f Prasda the best com. on the Prakriykaumudl 45 *14 , 4 5 *n2 ; his cfate 45*16 ; disparaged by B hattoji 45*17 ; the authors quoted by him 45 *19 f ; personai details

148

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

* about him 45*21ff; quotes Narendrlchrya 95*24. Vivaraa o f Idvarnanda, a com. on Mahbhld$iyapradlpa 43*3. , Vivaraa o f NSrayaa, a com. on Mahbhsbyapradlpa 43-3. Vivaraa on Hemachandras Lignudsana and on Undi stras

7t*31fE. (
Vrittistra mentioned by Itsing and ehaps same as the Kik 5*20, 35*n2. Vyi said to have been at first a foliow er o f the Aindra school 10*16 ; said to be a contemporary o f Pini 19*10 ; corarnonly regarded author of the Paribhshs 27*20; eomes betw een Pini and Patafijali 27*21 ; mentioned by Ktyyaua 3 1 n 6 ; author o f tneSagfaba 31*18, 3l*n9 ; men tioned by VfttnanchSrya 53*30, 53 n2. Vykaraadurghat;odghta by Keavadeva 110 n3. Vykhyua-prakriy 82*1. Vykriti by Vivakarman, com. on the Prakriykaumudl 46n l.

W
W eber on P inis date 14*3; his History o f Indian literature 82*7. W estorgaards Radices L ingu aanscritae 25*n3. W ilkin8 Sanskrit Grammar 104*18. W riting, art of, when introduced 4*26 ; presnpposed by tho primi tiv e Prtiakhyas 4*30.

Yahkrti 64*n2. Ya4nhpla writea the drama Moharja-parjaya 75*11. Yska, predecessors of, 5; hoknew fourfold classificdtion o f words 5*19; 8*25; showaPini in mak ing 5*19, as primitive Prtikhyas show Yska in making 5*19; Y'ka, mairdy a philologist 5*26; forms link between prim itive PrtikhyaB and Pijini 5*28 ; calls his work a complement to grammar 5*n3 ; his Nirukta, its date 6 ; his account o f course of developm ent o f Vedic studios 6*nl ; mentions three periods of Vedic studies 6 * n l; his dato depending upon that of Pini 6 1 4 ; his technical term s compared with those o f Pini 6*n2; Yska comes between 800 to 700 beforeO hrist 7*5 ; objections to his being placed before Pini considered 7*611:; nature of his Nirukta 7 ; teachers and schools mentioned by hitn8*nl; his theorv that every noun is deri ved from verbal root 9*1, betDg basis for Pini and po&tulate o f modern phi!ology 9*4; Yakas sucees* sors 8 ; 9*n2 ; 12*5; 12*n2 ; be preceded Pini 14*13; made posterior to Pini by Pandit 8atyavrata Smarami 14*17;56*4. Yaobhadra quoted by Pjyapda
66*n2.

JC , Y, Z
d a v a s of Bfevagiri 104*32,105*3. Ysjuvalkya looked upon by Ktyyana as a very ancient writer 27* 1. Yjikas mentioned in tb e Nirukta

Yaodharma 58*29. Ya6onand G4*n2. Yavanas mentioned by Pini 15*13; not always t i be identified with lonian G ieeks 15*23 ; P inis knowledge o f them less than that o f Ktyyana 16*23; 16*33; 18*12; 18*22 ; Menander, called Yavana 32*23. Yogavibhga 37*25, 37*31 ; 38*nl. Yusufzai valley 19*2 ; known as Gdyna in the dayB o f Hiuen Tsang 19*3.

8*ttl.

Ya}urveda8ambit-bhff8liya 42*13. Yaiue, Krisa, Saihhit anterior to rffini 1412* Yakshavarm&n8 com. called Chintmai on katyana abdSnusana 72*3.