* H

m V . . . ( --------------
r ~ -----------------------------------1
M l
M
W ka ^ J
* 1
I
I1'
m
lmpp
Fxj J t|
S A N T I N IK E T A N
VI SWABHARATI
L 1BRART
8 1 0 - 9
XIX
J L
i m i

j j

1
AN AOOitlNT OF Tffi D!BBENT EXIS6f'
SVSEMS O f SA N S K irT G U M M A f
BEING
THE VISHWANATH NARAYAK MANDUK
GOLD MEDAL PRZE-ES5AY FO 1909
BY
SHRIPAD KRISHNA BELVALKAR, M. A., Ph. D.
$
PUBLISHED
WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVEBSITT OF
BOMBA*
AtURIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHOR
POONA, sili
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
PREFACE .............. vii
1. Grammatical speculatious in India: Their extent ^
ftud value ... ,,, ... ... ... 1
2. Early grammatical specalations: In the
Vedas, ......................... 1
3. In the Brhmaas, an d .............................. 3
4. In allied works ................................................ 4
5. The predecessors of Yska ......................... 4
6. Yskas Nirukta: Its date ......................... 6
7. Nature of Yskas work.............................. 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
grammar...................................................... 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 school ...........................................34
22. Chandragomin and his work ......................... 34
23. The Kik of J ayditya and Vmana........ 35
24. The indebtedness of the Kik to Chandragomin 37
25. J inendrabuddhis Ny5sa o the Kik........ 38
20. Haradattas Padamafijar on the KilS ... 39
27. Bhartiharis Vkyapad!ya ......................... 40
Pagb
iv. Contents
Pagb
28. Kaiyyatas Pradpa as marking the end of
secojjd period in the history of the Piniya
school ........................................................... 41
29. Recasts of the Ashtdhyy: The RpamSlS ... 43
30. RSmachandras Prakriy-kaunmd, and its com-
mentaries...........................................45
31. Bhattojis SiddhSnta-kaumud and other works 46
32. The works of NSgeaa and of VaidyanStha
Pyaguda.......................................................49
33. Grammatical works outside the Dkshita school 50
34. Abridgements and manuals ........................ 51
35. Later'history of treatises aecessory to Pinis
grammar........................................................51
36. .Dhtuptha ...............................................51
37. Gaaptha ... ... 53
38. Lignusana ............. .........................53
39. Udiptha................................................. ... 54
40. Paribhshs ...............................................54
41. Resum of the history of the Pginya school... 55
42. The 6hndra school................................57
43. The dafToFTTEahdragomin ........................58
44. Nature of his work ................................... 59
45. Accessory treatises of the (JhSndra grammar ... 60
46. Later history of the ChSndra school ..................61
47. The J ainendra school ........................ 62
48. Date of the J ainendra Vykaraa ................ 64
49. Its charactcr, and........................................... 65
50. Later history .............................................. 66
51. The kat3yana school ........................68
52. Its founder not the ancient katyana but his
modern name-sake .................................... 68
53. Character of (Skatyanas abdSnusana ... 69
54. Other works of this school ........................ 71
55. Its later hi story............................................71
56. The Hemachandra school................... 73
57. Life of Hemachandra ...................................73
58. Nature of Hemachandras abdSnuaSsana ... 75
59. Treatises accessory to the abdnusana ... 77
Conimis v.
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
SStraptba...................................... 83
66. Nature of arvavarmans work................. 86
67. Early history of the school ....................... 87
68. Durgasimha and his vritti ....................... 87
69. Commentaries on Durgasiiiihas vritti...... 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 date...... 91
74. Special ftalares of the Srasvata ............ 93
75. Its traditional founder .................................. 95
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 J aumara school of Kramadvara ... 108
87. Its special features ......................................109
88. Commentaries on the J aumara................. 109
89. Its present status...................................... 110
90. The Sanpadma SChool of Padmanhhadatta 111
91. Its special features ..................................... 111
92. Commentaries on the Saupadma................ 112
Pagb
vi. Conients
Pag
93. Treatises accessory to the Saupadma ............... 112
94. ts prestent stats....................................................113
95. Later sectarian schools ........................ 113
96. HarinSmSnmta .................................... ... 113
97. PrabodhaprakSa.................................. ... 114
98. Lesser Manuals and schoolbooks ... 115
99. Oonclusion...............................................................116
APPENDIXI. Chndra-vara-stri .............. 117
APPENDIX I I . J ogvrjVs Pidaprakaraasagati... 181
APPENDIX I I I . A Ohronological Conspectus ofthe
different Schools, separatelg in a bag ... ............
GENERAL INDEX ... 121
System of Transliteration
a i u S ri r li e ai o au
* * * * l 5 ^ J H a 3f
ka kha ga gha a cha chha ja jha a
5 5 * * * * ^ * *
ta, tha da dha a ta tha da dha na
* * * * * * ?5 f V
pa pha ba bha ma ya ra la va a
* * ? o
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.
I t was approved by the *Mge vvith the rernark: I t de serves
to be printed, as it collects togetber a gtcat deal of interest-
ing historical information. I t 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 es^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 escep-
tion of the Chronological Conspectus and the General Indes,
without which no pnblishe 1work 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 com-
miesion. 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 scat-
tered their writingstbat I have taken into consideration
ali, or even the most important alL I would most thank-
fully receive, therefore, any corrections or suggestions for
improvement. I only hope that the essay contains enough
to justify its publication in this present form.
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 o o n a ,
Notember 1914
P b c o a n Co l l e g e , P o o n a , ) w _
Tr .,. > S. K. Bel val iur .
. 15th July 1915. j
4IS ACCOUNT at THE D I E f t K N r EAIST iC
SV ST B M S O P S aN S K R I T GRA M M HR
1. drammatlcal speculatloos In Indla: Their extent aad valne.
I t 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 explana-
tory. 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 wtby
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 of Sanskrit Grammar 2 - ]
bards, stili passages, such as Rigveda x. 125 or Taitti-
rya SamhitS vi, 4. 7. 3, already evince the conscious-
ness 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. I t 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 an-
cient 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 peculiari-
ties within a language. These are either a consequence
of the impact of the different races one of which con-
quers and dominates over the rest/ or they may be due
1 Compare Tantra-vrtijj^, Bena- their language to the Romns,
rea edition, p. 216, Greek grammar made flttle pro-
2 Until the Greeki began to teach gress.
[ - 3 Early grcnmatical speculations 3
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 happen-
ed 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 genera-
tion to generation the inherited stock of Vedic poetry,
attention came naturally to be focussed upon the pecu-
liarities 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 ly eveloped enquiry into
Aindra school of Grammarians language as Pitinis treatise
nots, without some contaot disp)ays is oontrary to ali ex*
with foreign peoples, and periliibe.
bitter disputs among religi* 2 Compare tbe Arctic home in the
ons seots at homet sucb high- Vedas, p. 230.
4
Systems of Samkrit 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 scatter-
d hymns of the Vedas came to be collected into family-
books 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 culti-
vated 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 intro-
ducedin Ancient India. I t 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 Hl|tory of rature. p. 520. Coopare oo the
Anoient Indiau literature, Snd eubject Biiblee ontribution
edition pp. 128,187, &c. to the Grnndriei der Indo-
8 Op. Taittirlya rayaka, vii. 1. Arnehen Philologie, eapeciell
8 Hietory of Anoient Indian Lite- page 18.
[ - 5 Pudectssors of Vska
5
raean not the Prtikhyas in their present formwhich
are post-Pinya and pre-suppose much of his termiao-
logybut in some earlier form and noder whatewer other
names they may have been then known. The contribu-
tions 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 de-
fined some of the primitive9safijs 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 gramma-
rian as such, can for our purpose be regarded as forming
the link between the primitive Frtikhya type of spe-
1 Goldstficker, Pini: 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 grammar:
PSini peauppoees and oaee RawtW?T RinW ;i
withou ezplaiaiug them, Dr.
6 Sys(ems of 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 deve-
lopment 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 advances3in the matter
, r ( These are the original Seers of
1 m w ew w r I DPI T 1 M antraa .

Tbeae correspond to tbe authora of

tbe BrSbmaio peoulatiooa; poesib-
I r alao to the oompilera of tha
family-booke.
* * * * -( Th#eare the auore of tbe Pada-
. a*. J ptha, theNighau,and otherallied
i* * j worka, inclnding powibly theproto-
fglff'lm * * ' typea of our modern PrSti3kbyaa.
2 Thpa, for Ysaka uaea wbile Pffini usea
C autai anfttf ftrcmr
Frequentativ.
Deaiderative Wtm
Attribute a i n a ftftarai
Weak termtaation ft|f%wi*t , .
Deaomlaative . ' No. 0* **""exi,ta
termination * nWWr for theae.
8imilarly Ysaka definea ( ra- often uaed by him otbeririae
ther derivea) f an 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
7
and urording of the rules Of grammar that are to be met
vrith in the Ashtdhyy. We have dealt with the ques-
tion 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 gram-
marian 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 Ktyyana1gives (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 eiplana-
Pinis 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 illustra- the point at issue.
tions could be fonnd. *
fc ystents of anskrit Grammr 6 - ]
tmj 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 dis-
cussions in his attempts to trace the later history of these
words, always giving references to any conflicting views
that may have been held on the subject. 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 advanc-
ed in the days of Yska is evidenced even by the list of
schools and individual teachers quoted or referred to in
the Nirukta,1none 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 terrai-
nations and tense affixes on the one hand, and the primary
and secondary nominal affixes on the other. Nay, he
definitely formulates the theory that every noun is deriv-
1 These are: aunmr:, amrnr:, Tforrercr:, rr$irft, ugt,vr
ftprr:, TnmkOr:,
ttw,, s^ofeTv:, mnrnDr:, rrur-
unmm:, lifti:, tm:, yftr:, 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 of!
modern Philoiogy.1
8. YSskas succeor.Many valuable works on gram
mar subsequent to Y3skas 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 and elsewhere. These conld
of Anoient Sk. Literatra, pp. not ali have been taken from
161-168. the Prtidkhya worka anterior
2 Such as renr, JTOHT, fffhrrt to Yska, since some of them
ffhrr, ^ngpff, appear to be unknown to that
3Infhrnr author and must have come in-
&c., occur- to vogue since his day .Compare
ring respectively in i. 1. 69, also Pini ! 3.120, affrf
ii. 3. 46, ii. 3. 2, ii. 3. 18, ii. srrsftnnu 1 where Bha^oji
3. 13, ii. 3. 28, ii. 3. 50, ii. 3. says, anffefir gmTT svar^i
36, ii. 1. 3, ii. i . 22, ii. i . 5, 3 m H r u m -
ii. 2. 23, iii. 1. 93, iv. 1, 76, q
a [Sk.Gr.]
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 Kty-
yana 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-J r-.), which speaks of Indra
as the first of grammariajik-3Ifo ali this Dr. Burnell
1 Compare the KStiika on v. 1. 58, tho subject of l
and iv. 2.65 : far 2 *-
flramenvtf tsrn i Another bit i
of Information about sirpt- 3 Compare, gaa^i orrtl^HHlft-
eri, whlch I owe to Profes vrft srraram: i
aor Pathak, ia that he ohanged qj Nfrom
tbe root am; to be to ar. Com- Bepadevaa Mugdhabodha.
pare mmmflhrit. the 4 vrg i t%arr
MahsbhEabja n i. 3. 22. y* piWii%ai 4taud wiif(tfii
Jinendrabuddhi and............................. .......... i nff)ril msviftsmrv
(1.4.38) aupply aarffiiTg: aa vraitht t <
[ - 9 The so-calkd Ainra treatises n
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 Tolkappi-
yam 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 conclusion1which Dr.Burnell reaches
is that the Aindra was the oldest school of Sanskrit
grammar, and that Aindra treatises were actually known
to and quoted by 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 re-
garding 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 Mah-
bhshya or Kik should point to the conclusionalso
endorsed by Keilhornthat the Aindra school is post-
Pfiinya 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 of 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 pre-
decessors, dominating the thoughts of generations of thin-
kers even to present times, is the Ashtdhyyi of Pini.
I t standsand it will always stand as long as Sanskrit
continues to be studiedas a monument at once of ency-
clopedic research and technical perfection. The work
is also interesting in that it is probably the oldest surviv-
1 A few instances are also collect- in one way or another Pinis
ed in Indische Studien, iv. work was an improvement
p. 76. Compare also History upon those of hiB predeeessors.
of Ancient Sanskrit Litera* Some of them may bave oon*
tnre* p. 160. fined their attention merely to
2 In his stras Pini refera to the Vedic and some to the
the Northern and the Eastern post* Vedic Literatra, or, treat-
schools of grammarians and ing of both, must have given
to the following ten indivi- less attention to cnrrent speech
dual authorsi srflrTt^, and more to tbe scriptures. The
rrurnr, VeBga spoken of by ruka
SniNDi VlCfVi IniVi and must be suoh a treatise and
S n m - I t wonld not be far not the Aahcdhylyl.
from the trath to aaaume that
ing specimen o that type of literary activity, which
found expression in the aphoristic style.'
11. PiinP* dateThe 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 'at a date much later than
that ordinarily accepted, that is, about the beginning of
the Christian era.9 The identification of Pini the gram-
marian 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 Vsa-
vadatt occurring in the Mahbhshya (vol. ii, p. 284) are
to be taken as chronologically in touch with the celebrat-
ed 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 Rjataragi8one 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 Subhffebitff-
in 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.
[ - i i PSint: Hi& Date i% ,
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 con-
temporary o Ktyyana the author of the vrtikas to
Pinis stras; 1and 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 farther: 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 pre-
ceded 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 chro-
nology much farther than there was any warrant- for it.
Since, however, recent researches into the antiquity of
l Histoy of Ancient Sanskrit Litera- P&tajali
ture, as quoted by Goldstucker in the Mahfibhshya (voi. ii,
in his note 91, p. 80 (Beprint, p. 386) ezplains what probibit-
p. 60) of Pini, His place &c- ed places (fsrror) or times
2 Goldstijcksr, loc- cit., p. 243 ( amnnm o T ) re
(Beprint, p. 187). This view meant. These prohibitiona are
of Goldetlieker, however, is embodied in works of the
not strictly sccurete. Pini Grihya or Dharma sStra type,
mnet have known sonte form and Pini mnst be thinking
of the Gnbya and the Dharma of some suoh works eziating
stras. In bis SStra in. 4.71 in hie daye. 1 owe this note
Pini mentione prohibited te Profeseor Pathak.
pl&oee or times for stndy:
[ - 12 . Pftini: His Daie
I J
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 are:
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 Indo-
Aryans gave ample evidence to prove that for no period
of Indian history could we be quite certain that the word
Yavana necessarily designated the Ionian Greeks. But
even if we agree to wave this consideration for the 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 of 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 begin-
ing 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 Mah-
bhSrata, 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 indepen-
dent 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 anduro form
a genuine part of the *w?UfiGnui. Such slight acquain-
tance with the Yavanas, therefore, as Pini betrays
caltoot have belonged to a time subsequent to Alexanders
invasion.
t - l 1 2
Pini: His 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 resist-
ance 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 men-
tioned 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
i S Systems of Sanskrit Grammar i e - ]
Skythians was Deioces whose date is cir. 709
B.G., and Pini must have lived before B. C. 700 or at
least not long after that date.
I t 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 Kty5ya-
nas 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 argu-
rnent 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 pre-
sent, leaving the burden of proof with those who wish to
maintain the contrary.
13. Known facts about PSinis IMe.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^a1which is probably derived
l &c, from rarmrnrtft 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 obs-
cure 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 contem-
porary of Ktyyana and Vydi and Indradatta, along
with whom he studied at the house of T'TTWDT Not
succeeding in his studies Pini practised penance and
received from God iva the fourteen pratlihra 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. characUr 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 frsftVTV Tfa*: I tendency to regnrd as tra
Kielhorna ed. vol. i. p. 75. what is given as vrtika, and
2 fl^f *rren?i; viee vrsa, has created floine
fifrrntrrfurvrt i Tantra ii, stanza confusion in the exact ennmara-
33, tion of the afitras. The whqle
3 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 Mahubbff- 28.
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 sug-
gested 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
present; 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 gratya-
yas 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 com-
pound. The formation and the vrieties of these must
first be explained (ii. 1and 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 noun-
element 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, dis-
pose of a large number of nouns which are derived from
other nouns by the addition of the so-called taddhita affix-
es (iv.1.76v.4). Then it is that we reach the substan-
tive 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 r61e of a mere grammarian, as distin-
guished 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 Udi-
sbtras (see belovr, 16).
This gives us the complete programm of the Asht-
dhyyl, and if Pini seems to depart from this in places
[ f 14 Programm of the Askt3dhy3y it
t i /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. 1and 2), and
he always takes care to introduce such definitions where-
ever 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 gram-
matical matter into a regular and a consistent whole.
15. Technlcal devlces used by PSlnl.The difficulty in un-
derstanding Pini comes from the very circumstance
which Pini himself perhaps considered as his real ad-
vance over ali his predecessors, namely his attempt to
economise expression where conceivably he could do so
1 1do not wish to conceal the fact reMilt of attempting to dove-
that the above topical acheme tau the two into a coherent
for the whole of the AsM- whole, involving in the process
dhyy will be found wanting, rnany an addition and omission
if tried in details. It would and transposition. I | may
eeem as if Pini wae work- even he that some sections of
ing alternately upon tbe two the sutras are post-Pina
main aspects of his problem. interpolations, just as, on*
tbe nouna and tbe verbs ; and trariwise, other sections ofthe
the present arrangement of tbe stras Pini raay bave bodiiy
stras in the ABh5dhyyI is tbe taken over from spmearlier
- 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 memo-
ry, 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 attemp-
a
to 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 anu-
bandhas 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 anu-
bandhas used by Pini are peculiar to himself, the de-
vice 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 intrin- have it now,here would 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$tems o / S a n sk rit Grammar l - ]
class, but rather give merely a few leading types. Pini
in his stras gives only the first word o a gaa and they
have hence been considerably tampered with since his
times. So, although vre cannot be certain whether any one
vrord now found in the Gaaptha existed in Pini's day,
stili the bulk of our present Gaaptha may safely be
considered as coming from the hands of the grammarian
himself.
The next device to secure brevity was the invention
of peculiar technical symbols such as r, P? sg,
&c. Some of these raay have been known to Pini
from his predecessors, while others were probably of his
ovru creation. Patafijali distinctly tells us that 1%, 5 and H
were knovrn to him already.
In the framing of the stras Pini always scrupu-
lously omitted ali such words as may be conveniently
supplied from sense or from preceding stras. The
technical name for this process is anuvritti, and to secure
it he has made some of his stras adhikra-stras,3 that
is to say, stras which have to be repeated, wholly or in
part, each time any of the stras dominated by it are to
be interpreted. Lastly, in portions of the Ashtadhyyi he
has so arranged the stras that vrhere two stras appear
equally applicable, that vrhich comes earlier in the order
of the Ashtdhyyi must obtain precedence over the
one vrhich comes later.3
fit
1 MahSbhshyu on i. 2. 53, and e, g* i. 2.48, where
Kaiyyaf;a in the same place. has i t, 3. giving a numerical
2 Pini sbows that a particular value to some mute letter add-
sUtra is an adhikra stra by ed to the sfitra , c. p. r (2)
i. the word snr followed by a is supposed to be added to
word in the ahlative case v. 1.30 to sbow the extent of
occurng in a subsequent atra the adhiksra ; and 4.
to which the adhikr* is to I
continue ; as in i. 4. 56; 2. 3 Pini viii. 2.1
* [ - 16 freatiseacces$ory to Pini 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 addi-
tion 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
significance3as 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 Nirukta1and the Mahbhshya/ according to
which Skatyana agreed with the in deriving
*"
1 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 trrarnft '
(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
4tSk.Gr.]
26 lstetHs o f Sanskrit Gramttidr i 16- ]
ali nouns from roots. Since, however, no #ork of kat-
yana 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 justi-
fication of the vievrs which he doubtless held.
On the other hand the Udi-stras exhibit unmistak-
able mrks of Pinis system. They use sajs such as
=***, grarnr, wt hhi , 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 Udi-
strasan objection which could not have been urged un-
less Ktyyana regarded Pini to be the author of the
Udis; for, Pini vras not to be expected to frame
rules that vrould hold good in other people's vrorks.1There
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,3is 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 vfi- against Paini vi. 2.139.
Wr*Vi or words to this 3 Psini, his place &c., pp. 170
effect. Patajalie defenoe of (Beprint, 130) and^l (Be-
PBini is throughout ground- print, 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 Udi-
stras to Vararuchi alias K3tyyana* The poet Mgha,
however, seems to look upon the Udis as belonging to
Pini,3though his words are not aite explioit.
The other works appended to Pinis system pro-
bably 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
factthat a verse from it has found its way into the.Mah-
bhshya; 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 : Tonffegt- ffopmSt 3TPJ-
tornr nrer vhnm i
goTVarf% l tnrv r l f i r n f i f &C. 5 M ab5bhEshya, vol. i . p. Sj B t
2 He begins hia com. on the i rp &o. * frqrr, stanza 52
eotion of the Kstantra with jvsrt &c. This stanza,
the verse : 98t: however, forms a genuine
fftvn ar st i *8 i i i umf rr part of the Mahsbhxshya, see-
i vr The ing that it is commented upon
kts in this school also in- by arj gft in his Rf
olnde the USdis, as will be Kielhorn, vol. ii, preface, p.
seen later. 18, and is quoted by
3 iupSlavadha xix. 75, and Mal- in the Tantravgrtika, Benaret
oommentary upon ed., p. 283*
the same.
Between PSini and the next great jUmmarian, Kit-
yyana, came many authors, who attempted, more or less
successfully, to emend or justify Pini's rules, and some
of the metrical vrtikas found in the Mahbhshya pro-
bably belong to these predecessors of Ktyyana. We must
needs assume this, unless we are ready to suppose that the
considerabie interval of time1that exists between PSini
and Ktyyana was altogether barren of grammatical spe-
culations. Whoever these predecessors were, as our
knowledge about their works is next to nothing, we must
nowpass on to KStyyana himself.
17. K Sty9yana: His date.The KathsaritsSgara makes
Ktyyana the conteinporary of Pini, or more accurate-
ly, 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 Kty-
vanathat 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 or little separated in time from
ing that 1. grammatical forms Pini are looked upon by
ourrent in Pini's time are Rtyyana as very ancient,
obsolute in that of Ktyyana. e.g. Vjyavalkya ; on his last
2. 8o also the: meanings of point the Kdik remarka :
words. 8. Words aoqujUre in r
Kfftyyanas time significances wmf- For foller
which they had not in Pinis. particulars see Goldstflcker
4.Literatureknown toKty- on Pini. pp. 122*157 (Be-
* i'., ^
yana was unknown to Plini. print, pp. 94420)*
5* Writers contemporary with
98 System 0/ Sanskrit Grammar i | - ]
about two to thile 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 raen-
tioned 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 par-
tially 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 ortho-
graphy 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 there given are indentic&l with
authorahip of a third work in those of Pini. ii. The pra-
efitra stjle, the Ktyyana tyhrae and anubandhas are
rauta stras (published in in most oasss those of Pini.
the Chaukhamba Sanskrit iii. Where there are ohanges
series), bnt it has nothing to they are improvements upon
do witb grammar. I t might Pini, snoh improvements as
have given Ktyyana prac- Ktyyana later emhodied
tice in writing etrat, but ^rith occaeion&l ohanges for
that is ali. tbe better in his virtikas. See
2 That the Vljasaneyi-Prtit5khya Goldstfioker, Pgini, pp. 199
is posterior to and based upon (Reprint, pp, IftS) and the fol-
^Pfini Is olear from the faot lowing.
i, that manjr of the stras
[ - 18 Ktydyana: Mis Work
J o Systems of Sanskrit Grammar 18 - ]
noticed over 1,500 in about 4,000 vrtikas. We must add
to these the considerable number of cases where Kty-
yana 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 pro-
positions, 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,3or with slight changes,4or by taking its most
important4or introductory word. Cross references to
his own vrtikas he gives by TtF stt, or $nr.7
Ktyyana, in that he meant to write a criticism on
Pini was compelled to adhere to the latters termino-
logy. Notwithstanding this fact he has used for
1 For Pffinie Kfftysyana in the PrStiSkhya liaa
ar&r Bhr i -m
j -i -* wrsnf^nmr<oitypn^s: 1-''4
2 Oaually by phraaes snob as i 4 Vnrtika 1to stra iii. 1. 84 ;
VI. Compare Indian Anti- 5 Vrtika 1 to sStra v. 2. 47 ;
quary, volume v, Note 2 on 6 Vitrtika 1to sfltra vi. 4. 14;
the Mahsbhaekya, where Kiel- 7 Vffrtika 2 to atra iii. 4. 79 ;
iprn dieouaaes the whole aub- to give but one instance of
jeot. each, .
8 Vlrtika 1 to Otraii. 1. 83 ;
[ - 19 Mariier an LaUr VSrtikakiras
WSSf*r for > fntrrtV for am, nPft and mrpft for and
g^. This iEact, together with the statement in the Kath-
saritsgara1to 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 dis-
tinctly 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 katyana3and kalya,4names
alreadyquoted by Pini; while in the vrtikas he refers
by name to Vjapyyana,c Vydig and Paushkarasdi,7and
designates a number of others under the general appela-
tion 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 ex-
tensive work called Sagraha, referred to in the Mahbh-
shyawhich 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.1That
1 Tataga iv. and elsewhere : fcr padlya describes the Mabs-
nmB& t J |f* I bhffsbya as nyuggfftsiaSi-
2 MahBbhBshya, vol. 1, p *8, line2: 10 Nmely, blDT, J -
f^ntftprr qrfimrfwp 1 mcmpr, arft, and
3 iii. 8 1 5 1 %.
4 iii. 9 : 3l f^ne rSFs l 11 The question as to the author-
5 Var tika 35 to i. 2, 64. sbip of these iflmrfilm is
6 Vartika 45 to i. 2. 64. discussed in the Indian Anti-
7 VBrtika 3 to viii. 4. 48. quary vol. v, Note 4,on ths
8 VBrtika 4 to ii. 1. 1, &c- MbBbhBsbya.
9 Vol. i. p. 6, line 2}The Vakya.
$3 tstems o f mskrit 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 quo-
tations 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 con-
temporary of Christ, but Dr. Bhandarkar has fought
through the pages of the Indian Antiquary for an earlier
date ; and it has been now accepted by scholars 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 withinthelifetime of Patafijali. ii. Similarly the
instances and srarsppnft which re-
fer 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. I t is
usual to suppose that the epithets Gonardya and Goik-
putra used in the Mahbhshyas are his own other names
1 The refereaoas are : Indian An- Groldstiicker, pp. 228-38 (Re-
tiqnary 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 the 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, histori-
cal, 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 success-
ful if noj also the last of the number. Besides giving
his ishtis*(desiderata) on Pinis stras, wherever Kty-
yana 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 Rjataragi1and 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 sub-
sequent copies of it have been derived. The work, like
1 J ournal 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.
mtft editlon).Aocor81ng to 5 Effa ii,8tanaas 44-0.
tflrarcpr the di-
5[Sk.Gr.]
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 con-
sidered incomplete and capable of improvement. Whethcr
the remaining \vere likewise commented upon by Pata-
jali or not is more than vvliat we can say.
21. Patajalls Mahbhshya as merkl ng the end of the first
period la the h1story of the Plnya school Pini, 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 lan-
guage, 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 classi-
cal Prkrit litcrature and which also tvitnessed the Scythi-
an 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.
22. Chandragomin and hts work.--Chandragomin2 was a
close student of Pini, Ktyyana, and Patafijali, and for
hisworkhe 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 ao-
the MahSbbUshjra rs given in count makes a monkey
tbo Patajala*chBrita (Kvya- responsible 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
( - 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 grammar tha+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).
23. The Klk of J aydltya and Vmna Itsing, the
Chinese pilgrim, speaks of J ayditya 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
J ayditya and Vmana. Itsing tells us that J ayditya
died about A. D. 660 ; and if the above identification is
correct,2this gives us the date of the Kik.
1 Un less it be those of sfr, fhnr, by Patafijali and writes as if
and mentiond in the STVtffjir completed the
Vkyapalya, Ka secou, hinisdf. Evcnso, hovvever, we
tanza 487. ennnol bring fho Kik any
2 Itsings accouot of tho earlier than 650 A. D., seuing
by srinfipr moy not after ali that on iv. 3. 88 it mentions
refer to the He the Vffkyapadlya by nama.
speaks of a com. on the J ayditya then ppears.to be
3$ of emkrH Crammar j 23- $
. The KSeikS m s tbe believed to be the w<wk a oae
author vawoaeljf c&Ued VSauua, J ajrditya, or VSmana-
J ayditya. I t has now been found out that thef 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 J ayditya the
authorship of the first five chapters of it, while the last
three belong to Vmana, who probably came soon after
J ay8itya and c'ertain!y before the time of J inendra-
buddhi, 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 J ayditya 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. I t is supposed that J ayditya is to be
identified with king J aypia of Kmr, whose mini-
ster, 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
Blmrtrihari the author of the
YkyapadTya. Vamana uho
probab1y wrote the l&st three
chapters of the Ksika came
oon after J aydttya, and
J inendrabuddhi, tbe author of
the Nysa on the Kfttiiks came
probably before 750, eeeiog
that he ia quoted by so early
an author as Bhlmaha. Com
pare alao J . B. B. R. A S. for
1909, p. 94; Indian Antiqnary,
i hi , pp. 232-237 andxL i i , pp.
253-264.
I Compare tlt* on
Pfiiniv 4. 42; ^ 3Krf^-
I *DTH*WIV
2 0a the question of the diflercnt
authorehip of the Ktllkff gee
Dr. Bhandarkars Report for
1883-84, p. 58.
3 ee Bla Suatii s edition of tbe
Kithk, p. 62 *
rwrwi^nfi*rwfsr m
taivk n?t rub i
nmnlt i sfvsfai mammt
'fimmi i
4 Dr. Biihler* Bpmt far 1875-70,
p.78.
( > 4 *4 fo&fcT o f f i & d i t p and* $ m m a l
<f v * v
fhe Kak i a rtnmng corantords^jr jtB NSjins
Afcfcidhysii, aad ka 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 givm m
information -vrhich wa could not pqssibly hfie 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 Asht-
dhyy 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 An%ry voj, *vi, pp. 179 and Uowhfi
g ystems of 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 011the Kik called Kik-vivarata-pajik
or Kik-nysa is the work of J inendrabuddhi,5who styles
himself This informs us about his re-
ligion ; 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 gene-
tive 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 I t 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 of the Chndra vyska-
stras 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 Compare aivtrr* Hrt*r3T*r fflWf
ffef vrsvvr* *rm
>wkile KKik reuds d% tn9wr irUT
t m i *4 C o m m en t a ries 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 toler-
ably 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 KllkThere is an-
other 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 vernacu-
lar 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 incarna-
1 Professor K. B. Pathak tells mo shortly (1912). Maitreyarak-
that the Ms. in the J ain shita is reported to have writ-
Matha at rvaa Belgoa, ten a comraentary on the
which is put down in the lsts Nysa, but 1have not been able
as a Nysa on the ka$5yana- to 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 under- Shstris Report on the search
standthat Prof.SriahChandra of Sanskrit and Tamil Mss.
Chakravarti of Rajshahi Col- for 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 Bhatti-
also going to publish the woik kSvy on page 541 Utte 16*
40
Systms o f Sanskrit Grammar
5 aS - 3
tkm of God iva,) ws learn that he died 3979 years after
the beginning of Kali, which corresponds to 878 A. D.
This account of the Bhavishyottara Pura pro-
bably doe Arot refer to our%Haradatta, seeing that it
gives Vsudeva as the name of Haradattas father.1More-
over, 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 J ayditya,
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 tothechrono-
may 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. p38411. 5fT.)\vitli
become a aiva, just as Hara- , PradTpa on tho sitme plaee
datta hirneelf changed his ori- (Nir. Sag. ed. of the Mahlt-
ginal name of Sudarana into bh8hya, part ii. p. 405). 8o
the one which is more general- also 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 inlro- Many more instances can be
ductory s t ar uV T f V T - likewise adduoed to bow the
*t#lWT ng ffi i inderbtedneea of PaBmajarl
BPEItrtr to tbe Pradlpa.
tnmnTfvrg.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 com-
mentary extends only to the first three fdas.1Aecording
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 phi-
losophy 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 Gaaratna- the Mab3bb3sbya, vot. ii.
mahodadhi, et,3, TST- J India : what can it teach us V
MHvpmir rontni t p. 352 ; Indian Antiquary tur
2 See preface to Kielborns ed. of 1876, p. 245,
6 l Sk. Gi. ]
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 J aiyyata surnamed Updhy-
ya, and his preceptor was one Mahevara. In a coraraen-
tary 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 Yajur-
veda-Samhit, whose father. was Vajrata; 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 rhetori-
cian 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- bhffshya before him ? In that
^arrurntit irriSftfshj ror- caae the Tripad alluded to
BrflHaorovPr RrftSr atr! H in the Gaaratna-raahodadhi
2 Aufrechts Oxford Catalogue, ( above, p. 41) muat be either
p. 247 a. a diatinct work, or may be no
3 Are we to auppoee, therefore, other than tbe Vskyapadlya
that Kaiyyaa had a coraplete itaelf, which ia in tbree ohep-
manuacript Bhartriharia lera.
commentary on tbe Mahs-
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 Saty-
nanda who has composed another similarly named com-
mentary. None of thesewriters 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 estab-
lished 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 in-
cursions, which necessarily preceded their permanent occu-
pation of ndia ; and it was, as was to be expected, mark-
ed by a general decadence of literature, reflecting a
corresponding ebb in the tide of social and political acti-
vities. 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 ttul s of the AfhSdhyiyI : The RflpamSlI.I t W8S
clear now that if the Pinlya granrmar was to keep
abreast of the spirit of the times, it should have been re-
moulded and presented in easier and less epellent style.
[ - 29 Kaiyyata's Pradpa and commmtaries 43
44
Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar 5 29 - ]
The earliest and on that ground 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,1must 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. tHVTHTH, v. irre-
gular 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 exe-
1 India office Ms. No. 612, whioh ( No. 209 of 1879-80) is dated
is stated to lmve been written Sariivat 1507. Virnalasaraavali
in Samvai 1437 * 1379a.d. is quoted by Anuitabhrati, a
The same Ms, gives Sam, 1467 writer of the Srasvata school,
as another date. A Ms. de- a manuscript of whose work
posited at the Deccan College bears the date a. d*1496.
f | 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 I n 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 Rm-
chandras 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, Durga-
simha, J inendrabuddhi, 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 esha-
Krisha 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 Bhatfoji Dlkehita acknowledges detaiD, for whith 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
2 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-com-
mentaries 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, how-
ever, 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 bro-
ther of Ragoji Dkshita, while his son was variously
known as Bhnu-dkshita, Vrevara-dkshita or Rmi*
raraa. Regarding the other details of Bhattojis life
J aganntha, 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 efikvr- AufrechtaOxford 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.
[ - 531 hattoji s's Siddhtntakaumudi
very scant justice inhis Praudha-Manoram. As J agan-
ntha himself ws the pupil of the son of this esha-
Krisha, this gives us Bhattojis date, which must be
about3L 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 Sid-
dhnta-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 volu-
minous commentary on Pinis Ashtdhyy similar
in pln to the Kik. This was left, probably, incora-
plete; 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 J agannthas commentary on the Praudha-
Manoram, there is another written by Nge, but as-
cribed 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 J nendra-
sarasvati, pupil of Vmanendra-sarasvati, which treats
1 Compare ftr ufihufarrit
fwq;wrcgHjf&e* wil.....
*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 mM luvl .I fifth Bbnika of abyya iii.
4
j/sms of Sanskrit Grammar 3* ~j
tbe classical language only and omits tbe svara and
vaidik prakriy. I t is mostly modelled on Bhattojis
ovra comraentary and is very useful for beginners, J aya-
krisha, son ol Raghunthabhatta of the Mauni family
has urritten a ommentary on the svara and vaidiki pra-
kriyS only of the Siddhnta-kaumud, thus complcting that
of J fioendra-sarasvati. Both these writers probably be-
lorrg 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 dis-
cursive gloss on some 74 kriks of Bhattoji. Bhattojs son
BhSnuji taught several pupils, as also his grandson Hari-
dkshita. Among the pupils of the latter is ranked no
less an illustrious nme than that of Ngojibhatta or
Nigea.
1 These relations would be clear from the following
geneological table
I
8OD8
1
on
i V ti l g Author o
the
disciple
wrote in lo A. l>.
Author of
[ dibciple
son
\ 1 ..............................................
son
diBciple
or Hihnw
, i
disciple
on
i
diaciple
srtrampr Hf&n
(1650 A, D.)
disciple
wrdte in 1641 A. L>.
[ - 33 Works of Ngeh and Pyaguda 4$
32. The erki of NSge and of Va|dyuittltt
Ngea or Ngojibhatta vras a vcry prolific vrrifcer. Bo-
sides fourteep great works on Dharma, one on Yoga,
three on Alakra, and about a dozea on Vy.karaa-stra,
he has been credited vith 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 gram-
matical treatises, and prorainent amongst these is the
Udyota on Kaiyyatas Mahbhshya-padpa; Paribh-
shenduekhara, a collection o Paribhshs handed down
in connection with Pini's grammar and ollowed by a
concise explanatory commentary on them called the ab-
denduekhara (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 Vaiykaraa-
siddhntamajsh (in three editions) on the philosophy
of grammar.
The geneological tree given above exhibits Ngoji-
bhattas spiritual descent from his illustrious predeces-
sors ; it also helps us roughly to determine his time. In
addition vre have a tradition current at J eypur, and
mentioned by the learned editor o the KvyamlS in his
introduction- to Rasagagdhara, tvhich refers to an invita-
tion for a horse sacrifice received in 1714 A. D. by
Ngeabhatta from Savi J eysimha, ruler of J eypur (1688
to 1728 A.D), an invitation which Ngea courteouslv de-
clined 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 Siva-
bhatta and Satl, a esident of Benares and a protegee of
7 [ Sk. Gr.)
Rmasimha, a local prince o rigaverapura (now Singa-
rour) 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 com-
mentary 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 Mah-
bhshya-pradpodyota, a Kal on Vaiykaraasiddhnta-
mafijnsh, a Prabh on the abdakaustubha, a Bhva-
prakik on the Sabdaratna, Chidastliiml on the Sab-
denduekhara, 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 seven-
teenth century. We may perhaps mention, as belonging
to the early decades o the century, Annarabhatta the
author of the Tarkasagraha, who has written an inden-
pendent 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.
So Systems of Sanskrit rammr 32- ]
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 Sddhnta-Kaumud! itself
by Varadarja. There are three editions of thema
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 Rraa-
arman at the request of one Sivnanda ; the middle one
by a J ayakrisha, son of Raghunthabhatta and grandson
of Govardhanabhatta of the Mauni family.1There are a fe\v
other easy texts framed independently of the Siddhnta-
kaumud, 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.
I t 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 the author, and written
abridgment calld the in a, d. 1631 (?)
irork of one of the pupils of
Kshrasvmin. A Kmrian tradition raakes him teacher to
king J aypda, which brings him into the eighth century.
This conicts with the fact 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 Niruktanirva-
chana, 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
ffrmrfrPTT ftfrrra: 11
Of other works of Kshrasvmin it is not necessary to
say much in this place.
We next turn our attention to the Mdhvya-Dhtu-
vritti, which deals with the same subject and which was
ritten by Mdhava or Syaa, the great Vedic Bhshya-
kra (1350 A.D). Syaa also mentions numerous workers
in the same field whose labours he partly utilised. Among
1 8ee Introduction to Mr. Okas r^rcir atft. ^ *rw fogfvt I
edition of KsblrasvSioina rRffft wvv?-
00m. on Araara. W II
2 Compare *nrr* <tmvP>rrv-
'$3 Sjtstems of Sanskrit Grammar 36]
{- 3$ A$tessory Treatises
53
these may be mentioned, as belonging to the Pinya
school, Bhimasena and Maitreyarakshita.1 Of Slvaas
successors ve need only specifj Bhattoji and Ngea.
The Dhtupthas belonging to tho other gramraatical
schools will be found in their proper places elsewhere.
37. Gaaph.~The Pinya Gaaptha has not re-
ceived from corarhcntators the attention that it merits..
Different portions of it, such as viptas, avyayas, and
upasargas have been individually explahied by various
writers, and Ksliirasvmin, as we saw, is reported to have
written a Gaavritti, which is no longer extant. The
only complete work on tho Gaaptha is the Gaaratna-
mahodadhi, vrhich is a metrical arrangement of the Gaas
followed by a lucid commentary, both composed by Var-
dharana in A. D. 1140.
38. Llginusgana.Besides Rmachandra and Bhattoji,
who have embodied the Lignusana in their Kaumuds
and written commentaries upon it, we find mentioned in
connection with the Pinya treatises on genders the
names of Harshavardhana, abarasvmin and Vararuchi.
Of these the first is probably not the same as the cele-
brated patron of Ba, while the second may or may not
be identical with the great Mmskra. Vararuchi is
another name for Ktyyana, and even if these be consi-
dered as different, so many late and spurious works are
assigned to this great name that it is well-nigh difficult to
determine the genuineness of any one of them. A palm-
leaf Ms. at Cambay, dated Samvat 1287 contains a Lig
nusana by Vmanchrya, which mentions among its
predecessors the works of Vydi, Vararuchi, Chandra, and
J inendra.2 This would at least decide for the existence of
1 Seo note 1on pago 39, above. rlflv tnP'T i fnifv 55$*
2 Cambay, No. 266 ; nfijfiTfTO mvi (HM'FfflUft r ut
|V n'g$qrntr &C. See aleo Dr. Petersons
54
Systms o f Sanskrit Grammar 3 8 - ]
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, J aumara,
Saupadma, &c. In the school o Puni the future de-
velopraent 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, Govar-
dhana, 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 elabo-
rated 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 J inen- 2 For Ihe istinction between
dra here mentioned must be iTPrS' and inthiai and the
the founder of the J ainendra- who!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 Pi-
nya 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-Dhtu-
vitti. Ngeas Paribhshenduiekhara coutains the most
popular exposition of the- paribhshs, and it has been
commented upon by Pyaguda, Bhaira\amira, Seshaar-
man, 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 com-
ponent 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 lucubra-
tions 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 mono-
graras on particular topics, the kraka relations alone
having engaged over forty writers of different schools
and opinions.
4t. 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.
ystms 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 charac-
terised 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 in-
advertently 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 neces-
sities 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 tend-
ing towards the same object. The lowest stage is reach-
ed when we come to the populair handbooks of the
eighteenth century. How far this decline is to be attri-
buted 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 pre-
sent case they are tentative only and may have to be re-
vised in the light of later researches.
I t 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#:)-5Mallintha, however, does not appear to
X The order in vrhich schools
arehere presented isnotstrict-
ly 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 in-
di8criminately used ia claasi-
cal 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 pub-
lished 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 accu-
rately, 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,8which 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 life-
tirae 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 expul-
sion 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.
of Bhartrihari acknorvledged Chandrchrya (Chandra-
gomin) 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 belong-
ed 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 praty-
hra-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 pronuncia-
tion.-3 The really original contributions of Chandragomin
amount to about 35 stras and these have been incorpo-
rated 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 to-
gether 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 48990 and com. 183-184.
thereon. 3 For Pffinie
2 Liebicb, ibidem,p. 10-11; Kern: (i. 1. 55)Chandra readafi-
Maaual of Buddhigin, pp. 129, ffrpr ( i- 1.12 ).
[ - 44 Chandragomin: His Work 59
speech. The ChSndra terminology with slight changes
is that of Pini'. The mode of presenting the subject
is also artificial, after the fashion of Pini. The gra-
mar 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 ^rr
Chandragomin uses the word Hirra;.1
43. Accessory treatises of the Chndra grammar.In addi-
tion 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 Ligak-
riks or Lignusana, Gaaptha, Upasargavritti, and
Vara stras. The Udis differ from those belonging to
the Pinya school principally in their mode of present-
ation, 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 in-
corporated in the Ktantra system. The Lignusana
is referred to by Vmanchrya, Ujjaladatta, and Rya-
mukuta (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 correspond-
ing 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
Id Systems o/Sanskrit Grammar 44 - 3
[ - 46 ChSndra School: Later History 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 pro-
bably 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 incoporat-
ed 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 re-
quires 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 muchbe-
of the only Ma. of the work 1 For a list of these see Ind. Aut.
known to exist. See Appen- xxv, pp. 103 and ollowing.
dtxl.
62 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 poit-
ing 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.
The J ainendra School
47. The Jainendra School.The traditional author of the
aphorisms of grammar which go under this name is J ina
or Mahvira, the last of the Trthakaras. The tradition
[ - 47 T&eJ ainendra School
3
of the Digambara' J ains as erabodied in several of their
works such as Samayasundarasr.ris commentary on the
Kalpastras or Lakshmvallabhas J padeamlkarik
is, that Indra asked certaiu questions to J ina 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. (po . 1223)
belonging to Professor Kathavates collection for 1891-
1895 launches, in its marginal nots, into a detailed veri-
fication of this tradition, trying to answer ali the objec-
tions raised aganist it,
The chief objection, of course, is the concurrent testi-
mony 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. Fur-
ther, vorks like Dhanajaya-koa or J aina-Harivama4
(A. D. 783) and writers like Bopadeva or Hemachandra re-
fer 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 J ainendra-gutraptha be 3 Except the one above quoted,
longs to the Digambarag from whicb gives a different ma-
whom 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 vetm- the J ainendra-vyskaraa. Aka-
baras. lafikadeva also quotes a J ain-
2 endra autra in the
farni ffari. 5.1.
Systems 0 / Sanskrit Grammar 547 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 Pattvali2and
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 J ainendra would come a little
before the Chndra. Professor Pathak in his paper on
the J aina katyana (Indian Antiquary, Oct. 1914) gives
evidence to assign the J ainendra-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 J ainendra-vykaraa3; 2. the circumstance that the
J ainendra 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 J upiter ac
cording to the heliacal rising system5a system which was
in vogue in the time of the Early Kadamba kings and their
contemporaries, the Early Gupta kings; and 3. the col-
lateral evidence to be drived from later references to the
J ainendra from the ninth century on. Thus the kat-
1 Indian Antiquary xii, pp. 19 ff. 4 Stra iii. 3.134
2 iRTisftftrtnFipTsfl' mr- f^morwr ^gwFmrrw-
S"mrr: Pini, iv. 1.102. TheAmo-
3 Kffiks iii. 3.40 TSTTOT vrHetfcft ghavritti of SkaSyana ex-
presuppoaea J ainendra plaina 3fffi r$wWifl
atra ii. 3. 36 fWr^yHPR- the latter beirg another name
V '%i, aa Kliks could not for varakriaha.
have derived it from elae- 5 Stra iii. 2.5
where.
yaria abdnusana (which dats from 1025 A. D., as we
#al l see) is largely indebted to the J ainendra. A
Diambara Daranastra of I853 A. D. mentions, as
stated by Dr. Peterson,1a 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 trust-
worthy evidence, being not contemporanfcous, and there
may have been more than one P9jyapda.
49. Character ol the Jalnendra-vykaraa.There are tWO
versions in which the J ainendra 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 ac-
cumulated evidence tending to show that the longer
version followed by Somadeva is the truer one, while
that of Abhayanand is much later.8
The J ainendra grammar is altogether wanting in
originality. I t 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 altera-
tion 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 wrf f*rcr ifa. is
Iy to rite a paper on the ohanged into foftsiT Vff
[Sk,t.) ;
i - 49 fainendra-vy$karaa . Its haracter ' 65
produc by coalescence a yllable less are not disregard-
ed. The PSiniya praty5hSras 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 ternrs1vvhich 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 ac-
knotvledged 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 J ina 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 Dvyiiraya-
mahik3vya 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 J ainendra 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 con-
nected vvith this school. Two commentaries only have
1 Such u w for *rm, v for 3 vvvTs#m(?)nt 1rriti
vttv, n for evA mr, 3,11 for 1fredf onal whp
ond 0on. 1(hrm wrt
2 Namelv, efpflT, Vtfthf t tn mmH ri 11
66 Systtms o f Sanskrit Grammur . \ 49. - J
[ - $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 con-
temporary of the ilhSra King Bhojadeva (Bhoja II)
and an inhabitant of Ajurik (\vhich is probably to be
identified with arnft in the Kolhapur State). I t is pro-
bable 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 J ainendra grammar
meant to facilitate its study for beginners. I t 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-Srutakrti3as 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 be-
comes rather curious. Professor Pathak mentions a
rutakrti as having flourished about aka 1045.
About the history of the J ainendra 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 ftw-
nmr .........................2 Indien Antiqury, x, p. 75;
.fhfht Dr. Petereo Beport for
$ t.iLtTkvn^ 1883-84, pp. 67 ff.
mm ; M I 1
to be attended to when the original on which it was based
carae to be studied more and more. I t 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 J ains, especially of
Southern India.
The Saktayana School
51. The ka fiyana School.Separated from the J ainen
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 J ains. 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, Madhavlya-
Dhtuvritti 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, how-
ever, 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. Catalogue p. 17C a.
I I . p. 44; Aufrecbti Oiford
68 Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar 5o -
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 J ain 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
J aina 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
written2 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, Pata-
jali, and Chandragomin, katyana lias freely drawn
upon the work of Pjyapda the author of the J ainendra-
vykaraa. 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: this is the use of the instance
Thus in sutras iii. 4. 111 and to illus
112, Pini tells us that the trate the use of the iinperfect
Imperf. 3rd perB. plu. of *r is (sutra Iv. 3. 207) to deseribe
on!y according to kat- a \velI-known past event which
yana, but not so in his own tho writer might have per-
opinion. This e^tablishes fit- sonully witnosed but did not.
vrTT- Now the modern ka- There is inscriptioual evidence
yana also rnakes the rule op- to prove that tho event in
tional and allows botli forms in question took place short!y
his sntra l This before aka 789 or A. D. 867
is wkat Pini teachea, and (see Ep. Ind. vol. i, p. 54,
not what Pini represents Ind. Ant. vol. xii, p. 181).
katyana to have taught; 3 E. g. Pinis i. 3. 11, ii. 1. 1,
2 The most concluaive proof for viii. 4. 40, &c.
7
Systtms of Sanskrit Grammar 53 ]
was already intended by Pini.1 Most of the new
matter.is taken, from Chandragomin2 (without acknow-
ledgment of course) and where he has improved upon
Chandragomfn, the improvement was already suggested
by the J ainendra 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 pro-
bably is to be identified with P5jyapda, the founder of
the J ainendra 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 economis-
ing the \vording of the stras. Except in three8 cases,
he has invariably substituted the monosyllabie
wherever Pini had used or 3rir?TTWP9( or had
quoted the name of some ancient authority. The most
striking instance, of this tendency is given perhaps by
1 E-g. srntf ffrernfrrr gives vrvwtmrrA (iii 4.
of Pini (i. 1. 71). 143), and 80 also doea k&f
2 Instead of PSiniHiv. 4. 9, ytuia. The like hold trne of
VT>Chandrft gives tft- Pinia ii. 1 18, ii. 3. 34,
ftuntraftl o also dces <ic.
ffkayana. 5 Namely irkatyana stras ii. 1.
3 l s giving Chandragomini im 229, i, 2 . 13, i. 2. 37 (corres-
provement M* .onding to Pinis v. 4. 154,
on Ptiniai roff: (v. 1. 126) vii. 1. 79, and vii. 2. 101
&katySna econoi ui ses one reapeotively), where fikatS
yllabie by giving the litra as yana quotes a* T $W,
t berein imitat- and fejj. Whether, these three
ing Pjyapda. names are merel y or
4 For Pinis ferrernft (v. 2. there were before him gram-
133), Chandra gives .funpar- marians of that name cannot
termt (iv- 2. 130), J ainendra be determined.
[ - 55 ikatUyana School: Later lii$tory f i
Pinis stra v. 2,128, which runs H>i'ttTlBlyqTl%i$-t
Chandra changed this into *n*f( =fff) n( =T3WW)ifi w-
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. Hema-
chandra based his own Lignusana on that of Skat-
yana, 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 al-
most 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 J ain Maha af rsspsjikS, and an ahuost
rSraa Belgota is not, as re- complete Ms- for that, written
ported, a Me. of the skas- in Canerese cbaraoters. See
yana NvSsa ; it is a Ms. of before, note 1on paga 39.
J inendrabuddhis KnikBviva"
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 Vakshavar-
man. This vvas throughout based upon the Amoghavntti
and lays 110claim to originality.2Nevertheless it has been
honoured by many sub-commentaries such as the Mai-
prakik by Ajitasenchrya, Chintmaipratipada by
Magarasa, and a Tippa by Samantabhadra.
Besides regular commentaries there. have been pro-
duced 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 begin-
ners, 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 J aya-
sirhha 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 Amoghuvvilli, prove the dopendenco of this
kat5;yanas own couimentury commeiitary on tho Amogba-
on 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
2 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 predecessor1was addressed to the Svetm-
bara J ains, with the result that even Mss. of works be-
longing 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 J ain 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 J aina
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 vetSm- work is based upon UHTV9T-
bara J ain is prove by the vfksr by and
numerous references to the (1250 A. D.),
&va4yaka-s>tra,Chheda-stra, by
Niryukti, Klik-stra, and (1305-6 A. d.), by
other vetSnabara works found mri H (1348-9 a . D.), and
in the Amoghavritti. by fkTm'ST
2 Besides the ffiffrs foun in ('1435-6 a . d)
Hemaebanras writings thia
io [ Sk. Gr. ]
74
Systems of 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 J ain 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 Anahilla-
pattaka as the acknovrledged head of the greatest of the
many J ain communities there. J ayasirhha 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
J ayasimha and Hemachandra displaying the latters
shrevrdness in contending with his Brabraan enemies nt
court.
[ - 5* llmachandra: is Work
75
After the death of J ayasimha (i 143 A. D.) KumSra-
pla, 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 iear from his enemies, he settled do\vn to a peacefui
and contemplative life. In this case there is no rea-
son to doubt that Hemachandras exertions resulted
in the king's conversion. A draraa cslled Moharja-par-
jaya 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 J ayasimha.
During the closing years of Kumraplas reign he,
in company with Hemchandra, made many pilgrimages
to J ain 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. Kumra-
pSia died only six months after him. With their death
the glories of the J ain erapire also came to an end, after
a brief existence of unparalleled hrilliancy.
98. Nature of Hemachandras -abdnusanaRegarding
Hemachandras grammar (the 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 rftflKfR f i np 1
tbe flrit pert of the title tbu ywwil 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 short-
est 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 ka-
tyana's abdmdsana and the Amoghavrittihis de-
pendence 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 refuta-
tion in most others. A commentary called NySsa on this
Brihadvritti identifies a large number of these quotations*
and if properly edited along with Hemachandras Brihad-
1 Some typical instances vvill be 2 These are t fs ihfh^,
fonnd collected by Professor TVmTV, mwf&, orarrVSf, WT%
Pathak in the Indian Anti- t o t , flTansft, 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 $iqrnr or ftjtr), Tar
ovrn is proved by instances
liks the sfltra tft irii^ srr \, |ptWi eud
(Pffini ii. 1.18), which ttka- many others. The TVntVPT is
Byana gives as rft probahly fcmnr, while
( s t ), while Hemachan- i s probably the same person
dra givee as cft r who is quoted in the Amogba-
VSSTTf t i vritti at iv. 1. 252-3.
[ - 59
Acce$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. I t 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 Bhattik5vya, which is
known as Dvy3raya-mahkvya.
59. Treatises accessory to HemactaanOras abdlnulaana.I t
is not necessary to describe in fuller details the treatises
accessory to Hemachandras abdnusana. These are:
i. Haima-Dhtuptha, which is arranged for the most
part like the corresponding treatise of PSini; ii.
USdisntras, numbering a little over 960; iii. LiSgnuf-
sana, a metrical treatise, being an enlargement of the
katyana Lignusana and divided into eight sec-
tions; 1iv. 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 pub-
lished in a separate form. I t 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
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 discover-
ed, the lon^est estending only upto the fth adhyya.
The Mss. miijifferently call it tf'farr, srrf , and
rStvr. Its authorship also is equally uncertain. Many
Mss. and reports ascribe it to Hemachandra, which is
very probably a mistake. A Ms.1from the Deccan College
collection, which contains the commentary on adhySyas
vi. and vii, is stated to have been the work of Dhaua-
chandra. Another2Ms. of the Dhudhik purports to be
the work of J inasgara, 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 con-
sequently 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 im-
possible 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 Chn-
78 Spstems o f Sanskrit Grammar 59 - ]
1 No. 10 of 1877-78. 3 No. 119 of 1869-70,
L - { 6i blgests, Hanmls, tc. f
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 abdaraahrvany5sa. 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,1called 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 mean-
ng, gana, and other conjugational peculiarities; ii.
Srvallabhavchanchrya who wrote in Samvat i 6<5i ,
1 Compare tbe folloving gtanzas jf
from tha Praagti: irfjfbv SlSJtST #
. 3 Compatei
natvr-1 vramt v*^i imttaf
dimuium ww$4i i ^s- *
rur^l imuiru- 4 Seo before, page 46, note 3.
t nrfbfl- Spnr. 5 reteraoneBeport iii, page 10.
2 Compare .
during tbe reign of Srasimha alias Siwairj of J odhapur,
1594-1619 A. D, a commentary called Dargapadaprabodba
on Hemachandras Lignusana;1iii. Hemahaihsvijaya-
gai 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 5i ssorA. D. 1457 at
Ahmedabad; iv. Amarachandra, a pupil of J inadattasri of
the Vyadagachchba, who lived about the middle of the
thirteenth century and wrote a work, called Sydisamuch-
chya, on declensions and their irregularities; and v.
Guaratnasnri who wrote a work, called Kriyratnasa-
muchchaya, 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 coth-
mentators 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, J ainen
dra and katyana, and at least one successor, Malayagiri
' (? ^ 5) 1
1jnsvrmrStf 2 rfftitsil &c,
8o Systems of Sanskrit Grammar 6i - ]
[ - 63
The KHiantra School 8i
who wrote a abdnusana of his own and composeda cora-
mentarj on it durirrg the life-time of Hemachandra him
self, if we are to trust the evidence furnished by the in
stance mi <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 ab-
dnusana 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 suffi-
cient 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.]
8 2
Systems of 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
need; 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 explanation2of 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, No . 816 of 1875-70 from 3 Ih he to 1* identified with ike
the Deccau College Lihrary. Anhra King of that nams
2 The tradition is tnentioned in mentioned on p. 208 of V. A.
Dr. Bflblers Report for 1875- Smiths Early Hitory of
76, p. 74, and dotailed in tbe India, third edition, pnblished
3K7TqwT0f<uh W j EUT hf f*- in 1914? In tbat caae the
*m, a Ms of whioh is No. beginning of tbe Ktantra
50 of Notics, Second Series, will hate to be pnt in the ftxvt
by Herapracada ihastri. oentnry of the Chrietian era
[ - 65 Traditioml 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 Krtti-
keya 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 iu-
strument 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 incon-
sistent 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. Evldence tor later Interpolattons In the Ktantra Stra
pStha Corning novr to the work itself we notice that the
Straptha vrhich now goes under the name of arvavar-
man is divided into four parts ;
i. Consisting of E^TRT?, (ETTR*) TT?,
(arnpjr*) tmr sreaHttpN (Nf*)-
vwr> nd [fnnwTi
1 I adopt thie form of the name * Tbe terred names are derived
ta vmtmmm* te Sni* 0i tfc*
4
Syttems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 65- ]
ii. fUHUHirmOonaiging of f*TTHT (fltf*) <TTtfSUSfSTOI-
Ttr *n%<nT*> 5**rmr- vrmnr, mmrmr-
?n%mrnr, and [fhrnnmr].
*>.
iii. 4 U?m( M<Hu[Oonsiating of J TtPTn?*,
itHspn<r*> tu-u^ontr^, j o t ?, arf ^nr,
f gNHTTT*and gum*.
iv. gfTOJ t-Congisting of ftrf&TTOr*. V ^l ,
TSPTT?*. [jOin^TT^l and V^r^J fVpnT*-
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, includ-
ing 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 Durga-
sirhha tells us Sfor He elsewhere
tells us that the ^Tsrerror is the work of Ktyyana.] J oga-
rja the author of a work called the Pdaprakarnasagati-
and 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.
tary3on the Durgasiriiha-vritti, credits Vararuchi with the
authorship of the prakara in questi on snhnhrr
Otra* commeucing the vanou lygig of tbe Kstantru-stia.
gectiong. Alternatvs name* It is printed in Apptndis 2011
are encloae within circular the basia of the Deeean College
bracketa. Ma. 292 of 1875-76.
1 See note 2 on page 27 before. .1A Ma. of the work is no. 853 of
8 fehia *r*rk givta a to picai an Notioaa, Seoc*d 8ii.
[ - $ 65 Interpolation in KUtantra-Sitraplitha 85
h sfm1twr: 1 iTsstf sgmf^rr: irtftfosoOrtniurf
^f^TRnrsnr 1fSTrf^Rllfit 1Whoever 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 KmTrian stra-
pthav And even in the sections which are comraon to
both these there are so many variant readings3that 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 ex-
positor 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 them-
selves 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 atten-
tion. 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 mn as Durgnsimba ; and by
KtySyana. The India office an Udipha put together
Ms. no. 855 purports to be by Durgaaimha himself. This
Vararuchis com. on his own latter work dilfers consider
which re inst these %bly from the grorrfg^fg i'
Sfitras cluded in the regular Ki-
2 Ontside Kmir the place ol mrian siitrapStha.
these sections is taken up by 3 A few such are collected in Dr.
a Lignusana in 86 Srys, Bfihlers report for 1875*76,
attributed to Durgitma, who page cxxxiv
is protbly net tbt same pe
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 pro-
ficient 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 text-
books 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 alpha-
bet introduced by Pini, and retaining in their stead
their natrai arrangement such as is found in the Prti-
khyas.' ii. AsaconsquencethePinyapratyhras, which
result in brevity as well as unintelligibility, are dispens-
ed with, their place being taken by the earlier and sim-
pler 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. Last-
ly, as was essential in a work designed for beginners, the
1 The first titra of the Ktantra-
[ 68 KUtantra School : Early Historv
7
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 Stra-
ptba 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 Skt-
yanas 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 v ltti.^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 ampli-
fy1the Ktantra grammar so as to make it as thorough-
1 8y means of giviag vSrtika, the original etr&a. Cf. Egg 1
(oma of wMcb later comtne,::- ing's odition, Nots, p. 57?.
teters have inaorporeted with
Ststtms of 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 Dhtu-
ptha, 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 introduc-
tory 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, Dur-
gtma, 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 2on page 85).
69. Conunentsrles on Durgaslhas vltti. Writers subse-
quent to Durgasimha have raainly confined themselves to
writing commentaries on his masterlv vritti. The earli-
est 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 sub-
commentary on Vardhamna s work.
j u im<Tt or^1II It has a ring of that
faithaliout it. The other a
1 we saw whh h Bauddha.
4 Goldetuckei uelieved biru tube
Tbia Durga at} Ies Durgasinlm the aame aa tbe authoi cd th<*
at vnrwn Compare Ga&ratnamabodadhi, vorh
Eggelings Nots, p. 465 ocmposed (
3 One of them mu y hare been r iftartfftg ) in 1139-40
; compre the v e r s e a. d.
The next in succession comes Trilochanadsa,1 who
is also cited by Bopadeva and by vitthala the commcnta-
tor on the Srasvata. He may have oome very soon after
Vardhamna. His commentary is called Ktantravrittipa-
jik, 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 J inaprabhasri alias
J inaprabodha,5by Kuala, by Rmachandra, and by other
more modern vrriters.
Mahdeva, the author of a commentary called Sabda-
siddhi, a Ms.3of which bears the date Samvat 1340, is chro-
nologically 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 Dur-
gtma, 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 Ktantra.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 bodha see Petersons Report
the author of that name who for 1896-92, Indes ; and
wrote the Ktantrottaraparii- Kielhorns report for 1880-81,
shta to irlpalidattas supple- Mss. noa. 85 and 36.
ment. 3 Ms. no. 00 of Dr. KiclhoiU B
2 For particulars about J inapra- colleotion for 1880-81.
12 [ Sk. Gr. ]
[ 7 'treatises Acccssory to Kntantra 89
90 Systems of 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 Tibe-
tiau translation.
71. History 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 Harirma; ii.
Kulachandra who is quotcd by Rmadsa ; Goplntha
Tarkchrya who is commented upon hy Rinachandra
who also vrote a commentary on the Ktantravrittipa-
jik ; iii. Srputi who wrote a supplement to tlie Ktan
tra tvbich is honourcd \viih commentaries \vrittcn by
Gopintlia Tarkchrya, Rraachandra Chakravarti, Siva-
rma Chakravarti, and Pudarkksha ; iv. Trilocbana
(not the older Trilochanadsa) wlio rvrote an Uttarapari-
ishta, giviug therein such information on vttj, aud
mmr 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
Srasvata School
9t
72. Hlstory of Ihe Ktantra school In KSsmlr In km r
the school had a slightly varied development. The Stra-
patha 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 comraen-
taries 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 J agaddhani 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.
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
The Srasvata School
1 Sea Vincent Sniiths Early His-
tory of Iiulia, Third edition,
p. 382, note.
in 1875-70 contain* at the eml
the foI!owing colophon:
The Deccan College Ms. of the
work brought gver by Biihler
fafo whieh perhapg tanda
for 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 stand-
ing in the eyes of scholarswe sliould naturally expect
Bopadeva to mention it, just as he does many other estab-
lished 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
written 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 dis-
covered, 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, Naga-
pur, 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 strasi . 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 var-
tiks or mktavyasythUB reach-
ing 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 Anubh-
tisvarp&chrya in bis Sfiras-
vata~prakriy. Thus in two
Mss. of the Deccan Gollege
Col l ect i on ( no. 257 of 1895-
98 and no. 210 of A. 1882-83)
the total number of stras i s
near!y 890, includiDg some
stras whieh occur twice and
some vSrt ikas distinctly given
b}' Anubhtisvarpachrya as
such. We have in fact to
disti Dgui sh clearly between
the Srasvata-mlastrapatha
and tbe Ssrasvataprakriy-
strapfha.
[ - 74 Special Featvres o f Slrasz'Gtc
n
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 pur-
pose 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 J ahangir, the
Conqueror of the rvorldali these alike encouraged the
study of the Srasvata grammar as being the one calcu-
lated 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 J ainendra and Bopadeva, whose
avowed object was to curtail and improve upon Pini as
far as practicable, could not conveniently treat of their
subj ect 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 I t is necessary to emphasise Islam as a purely destruetive
this in order to eounteract the foree. The instance before us
tendency to look upon the is on!y one out of many.
94
Systems of 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 =5rt[ 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 evi-
dent from the word itself (trrur, tfvTr ete.), or is estab-
lished 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 irre-
gularities 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 *nrr-
or again vimn:
where it was discovered that even some of the commoner
forms of words remained unnoticed.
t - 75 traditional Fcundcr of 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 Saras-
vat, 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 turn-
ing his vrtikas into so raany stras. Secondlv, some of the
rules which Anubhutisvarpchrya gives in his commen-
tary are absent in other coiumentaries. Lastly, though
this has hardly ruuch bearing 011the 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 Ttmm:
thereby making Narendra the author of the Srasvata.
Again, Amrilabhrati anolher commentaLor has the fol
io wing :
Hfrnrnr r%%rT ernr favr 11
A granimarian Narendrchrya is also quoted by Vit.tha-
lchrya 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 of 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 getan
insight into Sanskrit literature.
76- The Srasvata-prakrly o( Aoubhtlsvanpchirja 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 Srasvata-
prakriy. 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 Srasvata-
sntras 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 ear-
liest of his kuovvn comtnentators lived. When the stras
once rcceived a stereo-typed form at the hands of Anu-
bhtisvarnpa, 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 011the ground that the several local
Pandits felt it necessary, in vindication of their scholar-
ship, to write for their patrons fresh commentaries rather
than take up those already existing.
* 77. Commentators on the Srasvata-prakrlyS.We shall
now give short notics of these commentators one by one.
Pujarja.He belonged to the rmla araily of
Malabar tvhich some time or other settled in Mlva. He
t i 77 Commentaton on Srasvcia-prakriy
97
gives his ncestry in the praasti at the end of his com-
mentary, 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 commenta-
tor mentions Narendranagari as an influencial writer on
the Srasvata. Amritabhrati was a pupil of. Amalasara-
svati, and he bears the title PiaMSM ii). His com-
mentary is called Subodhk. Unortunately ali the
existing mss. of this commenta^y contain such a confu-
sion 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 predeces-
sors of his, and he is in turn quoted by J aganntha, the
1 See Dr. BhandarkareKeport for 1882-83, p. 12,
UfSk.Gr.]
$8 S y s tm s o f Sanskrit Grammar y y ~ ]
author of Srapradpik, and unfavourably criticised by
Bhatta Dhanevara who explicitly calls his own comraen*
tary 3ri)vgQuM4iffr, 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
J ain belonging to the Brihad-Gachchha of Nagpur, resid-
ing in a J ain 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 com-
mentary 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 Chad-
vara and gives2the date of his commentary to be Sarii-
vat 1634. The commentary is called Srasvataprasda.
Madana.From the colophon at the end of the fM-
JUbUn we learn that Madana was the Mah-pradhna and
Safighapati to Alpashi. His father was named Vhada
1 Compare aftnunifoftPffo- 2 Compare
ftir amftRn nrfvn;' geortHhTvr
sJNr- smnftsii
nrvftffc g: n
[ - 77 Commentators on Srasvata-prakriyS 99
and he belonged to the Kharatara Gachchha. The com-
mentary 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 com-
raentary belongs to the year 1574 A. d.
Megharatna.He was a J ain belonging to the Brihat-
Kharatara 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.
Dhanevara. He wrote his commentary with the
avowed object of correcting Kshemendra. As a conse-
quence 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). I f this Alpa-
search 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 cTB^gT^'jtFTvrhich is PujarSja, which however does
written in Samvat 1369. This not appear very likely.
fuqpn*hwas 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
five stanzas at the end of the section of the com-
mentary, a Tik on the Mahbhshya called Chintmai,
a new grammar for beginners called PrakriySmai, and
a commentary on a stotra from the Padmapura.
Jagannitha.This commentator also quotes and is
therefore later than Dhanendra. We know nothing per
sonai about J aganntha. The commentary bears the name
of Srapradpik.
Kssfastba.His commentary is called Srasvatabh-
shya, but is not so diffuse as the name would imply.
The author is not communicative about himself and the
only thing that can be definitely asserted of him is that
he must have lived prior to 1610 A. d ., when 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 com-
raentary was copied in A. d . 1615.
Sahajaklrtl.It is a relief to come from these sha-
dowy figurs to one who is somewhat less chary of giving
us information about himself. Sahajakriti was a J ain, a
Vchanchraya and a pupil of Hemanandanagai of
the Kharatara Gachchha. The com. is called Srasvata-
prakriyvrtika and was composed1in 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 in-
troductory verses of the SSrasvataprakriy. He was
the pupil of Vijay3nanda and flourished about Samvat
1708 = a . D. 1650.
ioo Sysiems of Sanskrit Grammar 77 - ]
Rimabbatta.This author's coin. is a crriosity ot so
muh for its subject matter as for the manner of its com-
pilation. The com. is called Vidvatprabodhin or Rra-
bhatt 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
J anSrdana, 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. acces-
sible are complete.
In addition to these names there could be mentioned
a few otherssuch as RatnSkara, N5ryaahh5rati,
[ 577 Commenlators on Srasvata-prakriy3 xo
i os 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. I t is necessary, however, to mention
a few more writers who wrote commentaries on the
Srasvata independently of the Srasvataprakriy, al-
though 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 Siddhntachan-
drik by Ramchandrrama. As we possess little Infor
mation about this author, we at once turn to his com-
mentators. 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 pub-
lished 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 Madhu-
sdana. The author points out many interpolations in
the works of Anubhtisvarupchrya. He wrote his
work in 1614 A. D. in the reign of J ahangir.2
Siddhntaratna by J inendu or J inaratna 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. I t was undertaken by a pupil of Bha-
1 With the words 2
[ - 79 Treatins Acce$sory to Sreuvata 103
ttoji Dksbita, Raghuntha by name. I t is called Laghu-
bhshya 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 J natilaka 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 Laghusiddhntachandri-
k above noticed, an author called Kalyasarasvati has
produced ffratrunr a small work called Laghusras-
vata. 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 con-
tinued to be studied in ali parts of Northern India by the
3 Compare astmi( ? v )g*n|?*T- Rnt PRUfVt (?) ifcll
help of the namerou coramentaries which came into
eristence simttaneously and on ali sides. Each com-
mentaty 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 us; but by that time
the Kumuds and the abridgments of Varadarja and
others had fairly ousted the Srasvata from the field.
I t 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 anglo-
sanskrit 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
81. The scbool of Bopadeva This is a comparatively
recent school of grammarians. Consequently there is no
. tradition of divine revelation attaching to the Mugdha-
bodha, 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
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-
104 S/stetns of Sanskrit Grammar $ 8o- j
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.2Although 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 Bhgavata-
pura), 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 re-
cast of old rules and terms) remained as pressing as ever.
1 Compare fSj- the Bhsgavata cau be provod
rgg^Tll 5wr- from various arguments :
IIfrom tho gvirr- amongst others the followicg
qt, and 1#hr5TWH*yiWIVT - quotation (VrljtViJIDrnf fitrat-
fsr^csrit 1 f tf vr fit 1 efluTuvntf 3
uVSfcmtfrgaft 11from the gft- ) from the
iftgrnw. (p. 63) of faj-
2 Dr. Bbandarkar8 Early Ilistory ^1$) edited (1909) by l{ags~
of the Deccan, p. 89. chsrya, who tries to prove its
3 That Bopadeva did not writo genuineness.
i4 [ Sk. Gr. ] '
106 $ystems of-Sanskrit Grammar | 63 ]
I t was at such a juncture that Bopadeva wrote his Mug-
dhabodha. 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 praty-
hra-sntras making 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 Pini; 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 t t o ism:
gnft, the n& gynrrsvimm
option&l forms tt, etc. and so on everywhre.
are shown by 2 For csumplc, i j for i f for
f t n * 1m* Vfoa'- f f ; for fw for
fWisiN an etc.
84. 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 Mano-
ram. 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 domi-
nated 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 neigh-
bourhood 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<Tnf%nai 4<srr' )>upon whose systems he frequent-
ly 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 Rmabhadrany-
ylakra.
[ - 84 Bopadeva's School: Later History xoy
Io8 Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar 8 4 - ]
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 inevi-
table 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 ar-
ranged accordingly to their endings, and a commentary
on the same called Kmadhenu, the chief import-
ance 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. Rmachandra-
vidybhnsha (aka 1610) wrote a Paribhshvritti. Rma
tarkavga put together an alphabetically arranged U-
dikoa. And there are other minor works attributed,
probably by mistake, to Bopadeva himself.
The J aumara School
86. The Jaumara school of Kramadivara.The name by
which this school is popularly known is a misnomer. It
comes from J umaranand 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 Safikshipta-
sra, indicating by it that it was an epitome or an abridg-
ment 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 Pra-
kriy- 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 Bhartri-
haris 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 Kram-
advara were confined to the rejection of a few super-
fluous or difficult rules of Pini and the adoption of a
different mode of arrangement. The work is divided into
seven pdas,1the eighth dealing with Prkrit being add-
ed later. In the mode of systematising the grmmati-
cal material, as also in accuracy and method, the gram-
mars of Bopadeva and others certainly compare favour-
ably 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 J umaranand who is
styled in the mss. HSTTPSTrRrrrsr. Detractors of the school
make much fun of the name J umaranand, which they
believe belongs to a man of the weaver caste. J umara-
nands vritti is known as Rasavat and in consequence
the school itself bore the name of Rsavata under which
1. Ntttnely, rffcj, WIW, ***,
110 Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar 88 - ]
title it is quoted by Bharata the commentator on the
Bhattikvya. J umarnandis seems to have been the ear-
liest 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 learn-
ed 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 commen-
tary 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 ;by Keavadeva styled Tarka-
pachnanabhattchrya ;3 by Chandraekharavidyla-
kra ; by Vamvdana, Harirma, and many others. In-
dependently of Goy!chandras gloss there do not seem to
be in existence any notable commentaries on the J aumara
grammar. Colebrooke mentions only one by Gopla-
chakra 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 iscallednof m
second aeries, vol. i.. gtfijmgj and regarding it the
2 Ezplained asaimVHT* author eays ttnr-
trrr njvn jfair g t shvmt ftr-
mgfhnti vortin
Ape ffenSMrmBr i
C- I 9*
The Saupadma School
The Saupadma School
90. The Saupadma school of Padmaribhadatta The origi-
nator 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 Gae-
vara 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 correct1it 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.
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, remodelled4a greater part of Pini's rules and ar-
ranged 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 2 Compare frTOTlf q rr
of Notics, second series, *
vol. i. The date looks rather grnStiTl%Q gg
sustiem us from the fact that N
in the beginning of the same 3 Thus Pinis h%ITT
work the author has attempted is changed into 3*f^ffaT*$rr
to trace his accestry from HHVg: i
Vararuchi, one of the nine 4 The work consists of five chap-
gems in the court of vikram- ters dealing with i. ff and
Sditya. Necdless to say that 5ii. gfTCgf and dedension;
the attempted geneology is a iii. ansgra; iv. and gomfr
failure. suffixes | and v.
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-chakra-
varti, Rmachandra, etc. The best of the lot is Vishu-
miras 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 con-
siderable 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 con-
taining the suffixes that end in a vowel, and the second
those in consonants. They are ali arranged alphabetical-
ly. 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.
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 J essore, Khulna and Bharatpur in the Twenty-
four Paraganas.
Later Sectarian Schools
95. Later Sectarian Scbools.We now come to a class
of grammarians who have carried to extremes the ten-
dency, 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 employ-
ment 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. ]
[ - 9 6 Later Sectarian Schools 113
I i 4 ystets of Samkrit Grammar 96 *]
J vagosVSmin'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 com-
mCntaries 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 uncer-
tain and immaterical as to whether the Vaishavas or the
Saivas are to be credited with the invention of this in-
genious sectarian device. We may suppose that the
beginning having been once made by Bopadeva, who was
a little remained but to stretch the thing
stili further.
The author of the Prabodhapraka is Blarmapa-
chnana, 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^, RisfirddlRtfmi,
etc. Here is one of his stras jfrrrvr, which
is explained ht t j? R A
Dhtupraka is also attributcd to this author. I t is
clear that works Whlch carry things to such an extreme
can claim the only merit of doggedly carrying an idea
through. I t 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 MUefelianeOflt Easa?* , vol . i i . p* 18.
- 9$ Lesser i k a m a h 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. I t vras suc-
ceeded by that of able commentators and critics which
continued as long as there was the necessity of under-
standing 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 hand-
books 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 pro-
duced. They vre re 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 com-
mentary called Subodhinl is vrritten upon it by Goplagiri
doubtless a protege of the prince.
2, Bhoja-vydkaraa by Vinayasundara^r^ritten for
the benefit of a king Bhoja, son of Bhramalla. This
work, like the above, is metrical in form, folloving the
usual topical arrangement.
3. Bhvasimhaprakriy by Bhatta- inyakaThis
is another of what we may call royal grammars. I t was
written for the edification of Bhvasimha the eldest son
of a local prince who is styled ^d^Tis; (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.
5. Krikvali by Nryaa surnamed Bhattchrya-
chakravartiThis elementary grammar was meant origi-
nally 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 obs-
tacles in the way of students learning the five mah-
kvyas, arising from the circumstance of their not having
learnt grammar before. The author assures us that with
the help of his work r i t.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.
n6 Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar 98- 99]
HPPENDIX I.
( See note 2 on pag: 60 )
11 11
3* Ri hh: 13* 1 h <=rar
s^t r h; i i ^ hh 1
3 ^iflTIH I 55i I I HHVRHT II
^rpogHrf^m: s!3rwn: 1srrg i^htptpt i aitift 3WFft-
trat: I 'HFHHT I ^TrH kdfPJH^HT II
^ qj?TiP I fafTV rTTHPT I fa^TH mSS^HP I ftTfhlM' ftR-
HTHIH I ^m: ROTSII
SnrHt I 3TTH?Ht STFCM|| TSrr^JJtTT. HfHf#
t H II HfHf# WHHT I R|fT 3PSJTjf PHlHf
^ I rTit RfRf ^flTt: [ ] I I ?iTnHn-
'FRHT II HTUiIhTHII f^SrH*TFTFH II ^gTl I ^Ftfat
1s swr{|ftqT: v'THRHA'fl4if^fTHft^iqej|fftiTfs!q- R ^pj^ Hi^r-
3sr?Fn 'jt hKt: i HfHsn^^snon: 1?d tR
HPnorr: I ^fPT'Ppfa'SfHr: HRp^THHHST^RT: Ti^d^uSdl^H-
' sr^IHT flWr: 1 *PTO?T*itwTT: I HmrHT:
HRli: l 3THHMT THI: I r^r sn^r: rPTd: II
3Tsr ;srmf =1# <r^t p- f?r Riht Rrer:
1* HlftT^H HI^Hrt^f^TlRRF^T Wl^THT HffrT I ^f^orf-
fo?f 1srfm h flfcr 1?fa gr^THi 11 -
=&$: 1Rmflret sftf: 1Rri^f: p; 11?i^irr: 1Ar^-
k T^IrT: I HHTR: VRr:II^TlHIfdTf^f f t^dl f tl ^I I 3THH*TT
f^sp^T Hignif^F rgHifWr^fW 11
App. i. ] Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar 117
11rfit ^rarenftsnfli mtm#u
n 8 Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar [ App. ii, *
HPPENDIX Ii.
( See no te t on paffe 4S )
ti aw gncmf l cf ttii i>
3* *nr: 13* 1
3mT**
%5 i
fpsn^ft svfnT Tufotf
rlMllRl'bM^ I
3TIW^W H3[5 HTni ft7H?7-
Sfcmfo f| t o t o p t : 11x 11
HW*T Tfbrmi srqif K[ 3Tf^T I
HHHH ^ II 3II
^gr s i
q%! i w ^ Hf^rsRFto ^nfi 11 11
hpt arot Hiihivi i
f |#r gwr^*rts 11h 11
T O ##: 1
^ 5f f^pigim <n*ir 11^11
7&M gtoWrH *fatW?T ftpHH II II
3[ HRT^faj Hf^PTTH HH7lf^r I
am*7i toTlfor: f^RHs 1
1)f^d^ HHf^HTTHHn II t II
THt f^PW IlUtfrudffiM*; I
frfflw<iq w riftr nff *w k wr ii *
T II II
aT^THiHuvr^ 5 r r m r : i
?F5r t w i r frfftkfrdr II i 1 |f
Hfvr an^n f i M ^ n i
^ ifrElig+tlt ^ grft: I) 'ik II
^T*rJHhr( 1) 5f q r^ t t . ht: i
FT 1% HtHHfi fSPP)^ II 15 II
HT5 vp?r W*fc<SI<W: II ' ir ||
*Niqqft wvFi <ramqt t ( ! )fafa: i
Hfft Hiy+Ilf^ II hk, II
TVrCHTrHT ff+l^rkPr HTH I
%IM<tVTf^TH A Hl <| t uIH ( ? ) II 1t< II
3H^ H 5 ^ r e W ht t # Hpppfttft: <v* ii
arron^T: #PR[1# ^ *m: l
h ?t ^hn^r ki^i-Hnpu ii v ii
uil<pr: ^ ^kTMFfR ftMHH l
HfSFr^H^PRTi HI% ^flHM% i
WPTt H O T W ( ? ) f ^R ^ 5 R # II ke ||
^u ^ihrHnf euR r^1 I
lHt H M k h P ^ f W g ( ? )f^PT|rF[ || ^ ||
IHTR^h flf: HTIH I
M ^l ni rl ^M F 'T ^R 'J l fo ft: II kk ||
qqu<<ii^ qjwf|5i q^ 3 ynitl^ i
riMTft#rT snpnRnTr^Ttf^rrft f | ii k h
<pf Kmfo qfA h^i i
t^r trHP^jft*. # *tf?f ^ H > ii k* u
- App. il. ] Sjstcnis o f Sanskrit Gramthar
12 O Systcms o f Sanskrit Grammar [ App. ii.
Hpsr:
11xh ii
^Hrr% PlHdl^J ^d: II
HT H^Tt blHHHl
SRTR[H I
pfcPH: RsrBfrT l )
VpHh 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 NU^a <Trn*<uu^ft: W H II
* At thiB place a few unimportant stanzas are omitted.
GENERAL INDEX
N. B. Roferenccs aro to page and liue, or to page and foot-
noto(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 (Ska-
tyana-) Prnkrysagraha72T2;
ita mture 72*17ff; the date of
the antbor 72T4ff.
Abhayanaiidin,8version of the J ain-
emra G514; laler than that of
Somadeva 65*23 ; his date 07-2 ;
his version followed by the Pafi-
chavastu 07T5.
Abbimanyu of Kmr Testeros the
corrupt text of the Mahbhlshya
83*27.
Abhinava-katayana, scf Saka-
tyuna (J aina).
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.
A gar vara 79*21.
Agnikumra, elder brothcr of llnra-
datta 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 fcllow-
era Ktyyana (Vararuchi), Vy-
i and Indradatta 10*16; its ac-
oonnt by Hiuen Tsang and Tr-
16 [Sk. Gr.]
ntha 10*17 ; agrecing with K
tantra and perha ,>sidunical 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 Nir-
ukta 8-nl.
Ajajupla successor of Kumra-
pla 75* 11.
Ajitaseiichrya author of Mai-
praktfik, com. on tli) ChintS-
_ mi 72*7.
jurik 67*5.
Akalakadcva 63*n4.
Alaudin, Sultn 99* 1G.
Alherunl 91 *J 6.
Ah* 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 mas-
ter of Madana 98*29ff ; proba-
hly a local ehieftain from Mlva
99*12 ; not the same ns Sultn
Alaudin 99*nl.
Amalasarasvati teacher of Amrita-
bhrati 97.12.
Arnara quoted by name in Bopa-
devas Mngdhabodha 10*n3.
A marachandras Sydisamuchehay a
80*8ff.
Amarakosha, com. on , lll*n2 ; Ly
Kshrasvmin 52*7.
Amoghavarsha I ( Rshtrakta ),
patron of (J aina ) katyana
69*14,69*n2.
Amoghavntti 64*n4 ; written by
122 Sjystem$ of Sanskrit Grammar
katyana hi msel f 69*13; its
ate 69*16, 69*n2,72*nl ; Ny5sa
on by Prabhcbandi chrya
72*2 ; Yukhav<irim; s Cl drt-
mai based , upon ^ 72*4; refers
to various Bvctmbara works
73*nl ;. drawn upon freel y by
Hemachandra 76*13, 70*nl ;
76*n2.
Amri tabhrati s com , Bubodhi k,
on Srasvat t-prakri y menti ons
Narendra as the author of Srus-
vata 95*2(J ff, 97*11 ; quntes Vi-
inal asarasvati 44-nl ; per, onl do-
tai l s about h:m 97*12ff ; his date
97*22.
Amvi tasrt' by Vrvanea, a
com. on the lMakriynkaunni.iT
46*nl.
Amri tataragil scc Knhlratard
gin.
Anahi ll apattakn 74*18.
Anandapl a of Ktrur 91*15 ; his
dato 9l*18.
Ancient I ndian L iterature, Hi si ory
off b}' Max MUll<r, 4*nl : 4*n3;
9-nl ; 12*nl ; U ml .
Andhra 82*n3 ; 101*8.
AnnambhattaHMi tkshar on tho
Ashtdhyyl 5024.
Anuhandhas of Pi ni 23*20 ; the
8ystem already known before
Pini 23*nl ; of the i hatiip-
tha same as thoso of tjie ARht-
dhyay 25*18 ; of Udi stras
same as Pi ni s 26*10;of
Vjasaneyi Prti khya same as
those of Pi ni 29*n2.
A nu bh l i svar p ch a rv a s !Sra sva -
taprakriy 92*nl , 76 ; the tradi
tional founder of Srasvata
95*3 ; his vrti kas 95*9 ; bis
date 96*15f: ; intorpoJ ations in
his com. 102*25, lQ2*nl.
Aparjita preceptor of HaradaPa
39*13.
Apitali, founder of a grammatieal
school, and quoted by Pi ni
9*23, 12*n2 ; his rule quoted by
the K4i k 9*24, 9*n3, 10.nl ;
37*8 ; K ai yyata quotes from
his grammar 10*4, 10*u2 ; quoted
by name in Bopadevas Mug-
dhabodha 10*7, 10*n3.
rayaka, Tai tti rl ya, 4*n2.
Arctio Home in the Vedas, 3*n2.
Art of writing, \vhcn i ntroduced
4*26 ; presupposed by primitive
__ Prti4khyas 4*30.
rya-rutuklrti author (?) of the
Paehavastu 67*21ff.
rvavai ra ouoted by (J ai na) ka
tyana 70-n5-
Asaj aka a ni ekname for Chndra
grammar 60*4.
Ashtdhyyl of Pi ni 7*2 ;*9*7 ;
9*9 : 32*n2; 12*17; oldcs1; surviv-
ing \voik in sti a btyle 13*2 ;
18*26 ; why so called 19*20;
programm of, pp. 20-2!, and
22*nl ; arnuigement of stras
within it, 24*21ff, 24*n3 ; trea-
tises accos,;ory to it 16 ; some-
times its teaching contrary
to that of tho Undi strus
26*14, 26*i:2 ; 27*17 ; 29*20 ; re-
castR of 29, 57*2 ;com. on it
by Blmtteji 47*12 ; com on it
by Armambhatta 50*24 ; 5610 ;
meiiiious 6kafayana 68*26 ;
109*101 ; see also Pi ni.
Asiatic Soc-ety of Bengal, J ournal
of , 33* nl .
Assynaus not unknown to I ndians
before Alexanders invasion
15*32; menti oned aR merccnary
figlders by I itii 17*23; bl otted
out as a political povvcr in 538
P.O., 17*27 : 18*9.
Asuras, see Assyrians.
Audumbaryaa menti oned in the
Ni rukta 8*nf.
Aufu'oht 42*n2; 45*n3 ; his edition
of Undi vri tti 54*11 ; 68*nl ;
108*1 109*3.
Aupamanyava mentioned in the
Ni rukta 8*nl .
Auravbha mentioned in the
Ni rukta 8*nl.
Autthsani ka ti tle of GoyTehandra
110*6, 110*d2.
Auvata 42*9ff.
Avachri or Avachri k on Hema-
_ chandras Bhadvtti 78*9.
va4yaka-stra 73*nl.
B
Bahadui Shah 78*27.
I hiiji 35*nl ; 41*19.
Blabodhi n by Bhatta J agaddhara
9M2, wi th Ugrabhti s Nyttsu
General Index
1*3
on the same 91,14.
Blamanoram an abridgmfnt of
the Pramthamanoram p< rhaps
by ihe same author 47.8.
BiTambhattT, a com. on the Vyavn-
hrakrua of the Mitksbar, by
Vaidyantha, uscrihed to bis
patronfsa 50.10.
BRLirmapachiinnas Prauodl a
raksa 114.191? ; his Dhtupr.-
k&t 114.20.
Bla stri, editor of the K4ik
36.n3.
Blvabodha, Chndra reenst by
i\yapa 62.20 ; eupt-iecdrs ali
other Chndra treatises in Oey-
lon 62.23. i
Bftlvabodha by Narahari 116.1611. *
Ba 53.23.
Bendall, Catalogue of Nepal ms?.
45.n2.
Bhgavata-pura 105.nl, 105.12 ;
not the \vork of Bopadeva 105.n3.
Elmra v a i n i u Rcom. on tho 13u i-
bLuel i codu^kl i ai a 55.9.
Bhandarkar 1\. G., llepoit for 1883-
84, 3G.t i2 ; Report for 1882-83,
97.nl ; on PidV, (bite 14.7 ;
on Patajali's date 32.12 ; Eaily
History of tho Deccan 105.m2.
Bhandarkar S Ih 99 nl.
Bhnu-dksU'a abas Viv. vaia
nlias Rmrama, son of Bhalloji
46.25.
Bhradvja mentioned by Punini
12.n2.
Bhiadvjva meutioned hy Patafi
jali 31.nlO.
Bhramalla, fathe r of Bhoja 115.33.
Bhnrata, commentator of tfe Blia-
tikvya 110.2.
Bhartrihari*s acconnt of the vicissi-
tudea in the text of the Mah-
bhshva 13.26, 13-n4 ; 27.n5 ; aut
hor of Vkyapadya 27,55.23 ;
Itsings date for him 40-17 ; also
author of a com , Dipi k, on the
Mahbliehya 4i.3, 42.n 2 , 109.8 ;
quoted by Vitthalchrya 45.20 ;
his preceptor Vasurta 59.1.
Bhsas Svapna-Vsa vadt t 13.28.
Bhshyakra, see Patafijali.
Bbvasimha 116.5.
Bbvasimha-Prakriy hy Birntta
vi nyaka 11G.3.
BhaUa Gopla 100.16ff.
Bhitta-virivakas Bhvasiihha-
PrakriyJt 116.3.
B1. 4tikvya quoted by Haradatta
39.t>3 ; 77.16 ; 109.9 ; com. on
b3r Bharata 110.2.
Bhattoji Dkshita 9.n2 ; difetingui-
shen botv een the two authors
of the Ksik 36.4, 36.nt ; ac-
know!cdges indei todnesa to the
Bpamull 45.nl ; bis modei
for Siddlihta-ksMimud the Pra-
krh~kaumud of Rmuchandra
45.10 ; his Siddhnta-kaumudT
and other wor>s 31 ; authors
tuoted hy him 46.n2 ; his pre-
smued imlebtedness to llema-
char.dras abdnusana 46.21 ;
disciplo of eshakrisha 46.3 ;
pei soiiiA dotai Is about him
40.23IT ; lns date 47.3ff ; works
of Bhattoji Lkshita 47-9fF, 53.3,
53.16, 54.17 ; gencological table
for Bhaitojis family 48.nl ; his
part in modern rcvival of Pini
92.17 ; 103.5 ; testi lies to the do
mi nation of Bopadeva 107.7ft.
Bhv i pra kik, Vai dy n th a s
com. on the Babdaratna 50.15*
Bhfivishvotlnia-Pura 39.19; 40.3.
BhTmabhata s com. on the Pari-
bhshenduekhara 55.10.
Bhimasena 42.8 ; mentioncd as a
vniter on loots by Syaa 53.2.
BhHhmaparvan, Mahbhrata, 16.8.
Blu ja cucted by Ksbrasvrain52.3;
tjnotod by Hemachandra 76.n2.
Bhoja II ( dlmra ) 67.4.
Bhoja, son of Bhaiamalla 115*33.
Bhoja vvkarana by Vinavasu-
dara 115.32ff.
Bliolntha quoting from Durg-
dsa 107-32.
Bhuiiprayoga of Padmanbhadatta
qi;otcs U jjvaladatta 111 l 3f ,
111.712.
Bhtibali fpiotcd by Pujyapda
66 n.2 .
Dombi v Braneh of the B. A 8.,
jv urnai of, 35.n2.
Bopadeva qnotcs by name various
grammarians 10.7, 10.n3, 92.5 ;
rjuotod hy Vitthalchftrya 45.21;
mentions Devanadl as author of
Juinendia grammar 63.22; quotes
Vardhamna 88.23 ; quotesTrilo-
1*4 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar
chanadsa 89.2 ; nowhere re-
fer to Srasvata 92.1, 93*26 ;
97.32 ; bis date 91.27 ; 82 ; per
sonai details about him105.3011: ;
hia works lOo.lOfli, 105.n3; the re-
ligiou9 element in his grammar
106.llff, 113.13,114.16, 106.nl ;
his extreme divergence from
Pinis technical terminology
106.26ff; his opinions refuted by
Bha^oji 107.12; his present lim
it J influence 107-18 ; 109.4 ;
109.18 ; 112.3.
Brhmaas, grammatical specula-
tions in, 3 ; their language very
different from thatof the Sainhi-
ts 3.8, 3.nl ; their uain interesi:
sacerdotal, and grammar only of
seeondary interest 324 ; 6.nl ;
12.6; 56.2.
Brahmasagaramuni 97.19.
Brihad-gachchha of Nagpur 98.10 ;
founded by Dcvasri 98.12.
B 11at - K h a r at a r a - ga ch c!i h a 9 9.15.
Brihadvritti, aco fcibdnudsana-
brihadvritti.
Bfihler, on introduetion of art of
vvriting 4.n3; redards J ayditya
a Ksmrian 36 .22, 30.n4 ; 41.7 ;
58.6 ; his pmnphlet on Ilmna-
chandra 73 12ff ; 77.6 ; 82.n2 ;
85.n3 ; 91.8 ; 91.n2.
Burnell, Bssay on Aindra School of
grammarians, 3.nl; 10.25; ll.nl:
11.8 ; 12.9 ; 82.12.
C
Oambay 53.28 ; 74.9.
Cevlon, Chndra treatises in, 61.22 ;
62.15.
Chchiga fatber of IIemnebaudi a i
73.25.
Chaitanya 113.18.
Chaitanvmrita, a Vaishava gram
mar 114.3i
Chkravarmaa mentioned hy P
ini I2*n2.
Chakravarti, Professor Srish Chan
dra, 39.nl.
Chlukya 72.25.
Chartvara teacher of Vu deva-
bhata 98.24.
Chandra, see Chandragomin.
Chandradsa 59.6.
Chndra-gachchha 78.33.
Chandragomin 20*8; his date
35*19; quoted by name in Bopa-
dcvas Mugdhabodhal0.n3; men
tioned by Vmanchrya 53*30,
53*n2 ; quoted in Gaaratna-
mahodndhi 18.nl; Chandragomin
and his v/ork 22, also 42 and
foliovving ; vvas a Bauddha 35*4,
59*5 ; and wrote primarily for
his own Church 35*6 ; his un-
orthodox inuovatioDB 35*6 ; the
Ktflk largely indetbed to him
37*1811: ; iliustrations 38*nl ; his
grammar edited by Liebich
38-nl ; cari irst reference to him
and his predecessors 41T9ff ;
mentioned l>y Kshrasvmin as
author of some work on roots
52*14, 52n2 ; his Dhtuptha
incorporated with the Ktantra
52*18; 57*n2; his date 43, 58-n2,
! 64*13 ; his own vritti on the
Chndra stras 58*22, Gl*9 ; exists
now in fragments 61.10 ; incor
porated fcy Dharinadsa 61*12 ;
nature of bis work 44; imroves
upon Pinya grammar 59*9fli ;
his Dbtiiptin 59* 14; his really
original contvihution 59*19; his
ohjuet 59*27.11 ; his turminology
mostIy PinTya 60*1 ; his gram
mar rnekn rned Asajaka 00.4,
60*nl ; other uccessory works
hy him00*9ff ; no Chndra pari-
bhshis 61*2 ; non-grammatical
works of, 61*411 ; 69*19; 70-21T,
70-n2; 70*n3 ; 70.n4 ; 71*2;
(uoted hy Hemachandra 76* n2 ;
his grammar said to agrce with
that of Pini 10*19.
Chandraki ui anthor of Subodhik
or Dlpik on >irapvata-prakriy
98*711; personai details about him
98*10ff ; his date 98* 17f ; pat.ro-
nised hy Salii Salem, the emperot
of Delhi 98*17, 98-nl ; 103*11.
Chandraekhai*ri-vidylakra, his
commcntnry on G.oyrc:handras
vritti 110*19.
Chndra stras, vritti on, probab!y
by Chandragomin himself 58*23 ;
mentions a Grupta victory over
Has 58*24 ; Dbarmadsas com-
on, 61*12 ; other \vorks now only
in Tibetan translations 61*25 ; or
in Ceylon 61*22; their list 61*nl;
General Index
i *5
Ceylonese recast supersecf s them
in Ceylon 62.23.,
ChandrvatT mother of Vijjala-
bhpatt 116.27.
Chgadeva, Hemachandras first
name 73.25.
Charaas, rules for, framed 4.10.
Charmairas mentioned ?n the Nir-
ukta 8.nl.
Chauhna 116-28.
Chhy, Vaidyanthas eom. on
the MahbbshyapradTpoddyota
50.14.
Chheda-stra 73.nl.
ChhichbubhattaaLaghuvritti 91.19.
Chidastbiml, Vaidyanthas com.
on Ngojibhattas abdendue-
khara 50.16.
Chidrp^ramas Dlpavykarana
H6.7. ^ ,
Chintmai, com. on Skatayana-
abdnusana by Vakshavar-
man 72.3 ; sub-conmentaries on
it 72.Gff.
Chintmai, see Mahbhshya-ehin-
lmai.
Chintmaipratipada, Magarasas
com. on the Chintmani 72.7.
Choda 16.30.
Climatic conditions, causes of dia-
lectical peculiarities, ard influ-
eccing study of grammar 3.1.
Colebrooke 68.nl ; 109.4 ; 110.23 ;
112.12 ; 114.3.
Cnnninghan identifies Pinis na-
tive place witli Labaur 19.2.
D
Dksh, name of Pinib mother
19.8, 19.nl.
Dmodaradatta father of Padrna-
nbhadatta 111.4.
Darina 16.1.
Daranaistra, Digambara, 65.3.
Daypla's abridgment. Bupasid-
dhi, o f katyana abdnu4-
sana 72.23; personai details about
him 72.23ff ; his date 72.26.
Deibces ( Divauhas ) first king of
the akas or Skythiar:s, cir. 700
B. C. 18.1.
Devachandra prophesies Hema-
chandras future greatness 74.4 ;
receivCR him into order 74.11.
Devagiri 104.32, 105.3.
Devanand author of Jainendra
grammar63.14ff; hinew techni*
eal terms 66.5, 66.nl, does not
acknowledge obligations 66-10 ;
namea tjuoted by him 66.12,
66.n2 ; 67.16 qtioted by Hema-
chand a 76.n2.
Devarja mentions KabTrasviruVs
Nighatuvntti 52.10.
Devasundarasri teacher of Gua
ratnasfiri 80.15.
Devasri founder o f the Brihad
gaeiichha of Nagpur 98.10ff.
Devendraburi author of Haimu
laghunysa and pupil of Udayn
chandra 78.33ff, 79.nl.
Devldsa quoted by Durgdsa
107.30.
Dhanachandra 78.14.
Dhanajaya-kota 63.21.
Dhanetvara or Dhantia teacher of
Bopadeva 99.n2 ; 104.30, 105.nl.
Dhanes vara, BhaUa, criticises Kshe-
mendra 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 some kind known
to Pini 14.n2.
Dhtuptha, the PinTya 25.14,
25.n2 ; its anubandhas same as
those of Pini 25.18, 25-d 3 ;
com. by Bhattoji 47.10; com. by
Kshrasvmin in his Dhtuvritti
52.6if ; other writers on Pinya
Dhtuptha : viz. Chandra 52.15,
52.n2; Mdh&va or Syaa 52.28;
Bhmasena 53.2 ; Maitreyarak-
sliita 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,
90.lfl: ; Jumaranandi revises P-
inlyaand adopts it for his
own school 110.3f ; of Sau
padma 112-19 ;of kat;yana
71.15 ;of Hemachandra 77.21;
the genuineof 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 Saupadmamodelled after
Pinis 112.32 ; com. Dbtunir-
aya on it 113.1.
136
Slstems o f Hans Ari t Grammar
Dhtupraka by Blarma-pa-
ehnana 114.26.
Dhtuvritti by Kshlrasvmin 52.6ff;
its nature and contents 52.20ff ;
by Mdha'Va or Syaa 52.28.
phu hik on Hernaohandras Bri-
hadvritti 78.10; its nature 78,28ff;
its diputed authorBhip 78.10H; its
pr* bable varying voraior.e 78-20 ;
on the last chapter of the Bri-
hadvritti 78.24ff ; 89-20.
phudliik on Durgasimhas vritti
89.19f.
Dhtmduka, native place of Ilema-
chandra 73.23.
Dhvanipradlpa 97.9-
Dialeo ical peculiarities causes of
shifting climatic conditions, and
promoting study of grammar
2.29.
Dkshita school 48.nl ; grammatical
wcrks outside it 33.
Dlpa-vykarana by Chidrpraum
116.7.
Dlpik on Hemachandrafl Bhad-
vritti 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 of corn. on
Nirukta 8814.
Durgdsa author of a com. on
Kavikalpadruma 107-28f ; authors
quoted by him l07-30ff.
Durgapaduprabodha by rTvallabha
Vchanchrya on Hrmachand-
ras Lignudsaiia 80-2f.
Durgasimha mentions Ktyyana
as the author of the Udistras
2 7 4, 27-n2 ; quoted by Vittbal*
<clSryiT45 ; inoorporatrs ChSndra
Dbtuptha with the Ktantra
52*19, 88-3ff, 90-lff; takes over
most of the Pinya paribhshs
55-12 ; quotod by Hemachandra
76.n2, 88.3 ; says that the Krit*
prakaraa of the Ktantra is
by Ktyyana 84T7ff; Durga-
simha and his vritti 68 ; his
vrtikas to the Ktantra 87.nl ;
his date 83 16, 88*6 ; not the first
commentator of Ktantra 83- 17ff;
his date 83*16; his straptha
differs from tbe one current
in Kthnr 83.21f, 87-27, 9-14 ;
85*5ff ; author of an Udiptha
85 t i2, 1)0-1 *, a aiva 88*nl, and
distinet from his namesake,
a Bauddha 88-2, who wrote &
com. on his vntti 88*10, and
from other later namesakes of
his 88-llff ; known in Krimlr
much late 91*6.
Durgasimha, Bauddha, author of
a com. on Durgasimhas vritti
88'8\
Durgasiriiha-vntti, com. on. by
lUghunandanruiromai 84-26; by
another Durgasimha 88*10; other
comin. on it 69 ; a com. (ano-
nymous) on it 99*nl.
Durgtma ( or Durga) perhapa a
ViMaiva 88-n3, and author of a
Ligriussana 88-15,88*n3,85*n2
distinef from Durgasimha 88 12;
89*16; 89-29.
Durgtma author of ( Ktantra )
Ligmmsana 85*n2; different
from Durgasimha above 85-n2.
Dvrakd-a alias Dvrika father
of Tarkatilaka-bliattchrya
1 0 2 * 21 *
Dvrika, nth Dvrukdsa
Dvyrayamahkvya of Hema
chandra G6-20; 77-17.
E
Eavly History 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.
Eggelings edition of tbe Ktantra
85-22; 87*nl.
Elliot 99-nl.
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 Mllva 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 KshT-
rasvmin 53*10; Chndra60*12:
embodied in tho stravritti of
Chandragomin 60*24; PiniVa
emdodied in the Kik 60*24;
of katSyana 7114;-of
Hemachandra 77*26 ; of the
Paupadma 113*1.
Ganaratnamahodadlii (juoting* l-
turlya or Pini, Eukatyanu,
Chandragomin, etc. 38-nl; 42*n2;
41*5, 41*nl ; 52*16 ; with tho
authors own com. 53*13ff: 88*t:4.
Gaavntti by Ksh rasvmi n men
tioned by Vardlnmna, 52 l l .
O iuevara father of Padmanbha-
datta 111*6.
G.ug^.i menti oned byPi i i ni 12*n2;
menti oned in the Nirukta 8*nl .
G tngovinda, <om. on, hy Ngoik.
40*7.
Goldstucker : Piia, His place in
Sanskrit literature, on Primitivc
Prtikhyas 5*nl ; 23*7 ; on
Pinis paribhshs 25-nl ; his
views as to the authorship of tiic
lldistrrs 26*25 , 26t 3 ; on
Vjasaneyi Prtikhy:i 29*n2*
32*nl;88*4; on Pinis dute!4*7,
14* nlt I 4*n2; 19*n3; his reasons
for assuining considerable inter-
val bctwecn Pini and Kty-
yana 28*nl; 54*nl.
Gomatasura, a philosophical work in
P rkrit 72*15-
GonardTya mentioned in tho Mali
hhshya 32*29, 32*n2: quoted hy
Vtsyyana in tho Krnastra
33*n3, 33*5.
Goikputra mentioned n the Ma-
hbhshya 32-29, 32*n2; quoted
by Vtsyyana in tlie Kma-
sfitra 33*5, 33*n3.
Gopulachakravartis com. o% the
J aumara 110*23. !?
Goplagiris subodhinT on Vijjst-
labhupatis Prabodha-prakdtt
115.30.
GopTntha Tarkchrya writes sub*
com. to SrTpatis supploment to
Ktantra 90*16; 90*20.
Gosvmi, surname of Bopadeva
105*8.
Gflvardbnas vritti on Udis,
^quoted by Ujjvaladatta 54*14.
Govamhanubhatla, gr&ndfather of
J ayakrisha 51*12.
Goycb: ndras com. on the Safik-
shiptasra 110*6fl:;his other works
110*14f ; sub-corameiiIevies on his
com. 1K M 6C
Grammar, its study in India 1*3 ;
existing* school ofin India 1*10;
nottreated ar ecitnce in Vedic
times 2*11; its study influenced
by ccntact of ditferent forms of
spcoch, by growtli of diulects,
or by a chtmge of dimatie
conditions 2-21 fF; Greek-, influ
enced by Koru un conquest 2*n2;
iis etudy aR science post-Brr.h
maic 3*29; 4*6; its really Crea
tive period 5*17; philosophy of,
treatises on, 55*16ff.
Grammars, Vaishava, 113*15.
Grummatical speculations in India :
their extent and value 1 ; early
;------- 2- 4;--------in the Vedas 2,
in tlie Bihmaas 3, and in
alliod work8 4 ; in the
TaittirTjasambit 2*1.
Greeks, Ionian, not always to be
identified with Vavanas 15*21;
their appearance in history long
beforo 1000 B. C. 15*30.
Ghya-stras of some kind known
to Pini 14*n2.
Gukara G4*n2.
Guanandl G4*n2.
Gnaratnaflris Kriyratnasam-
uchchaya 80*12ff; his date 80*16,
80*n3; important prasasti at the
end of: his work 80*16ff.
Gupta victory over Huas 58*24;
Earlykings 64*24.
H
Haima-Dhltuptha 77*21.
Haima KaumudT by Meghavijaya
mentions Bhattojis indebtedness
to Hemachandra 46*21; otherwise
called Chandraprabh 79*17 ;
its date 79 17.
Haima-laghunysa on Hemaohand-
ras Bnhadvritti 79l f f abridg-
4s& $ystems o f Sanskrit Grammar
ment of a larger Nysa 792f.
Httima-Iaghuprakriy by Vinayavi-
iayagai 79 12; com., Haimapra-
ka, on79*1.4.
Haimapraka com. on Haima-
laglmprakriy 79*14, its date
79-15, 79-n3.
Haima school absorbs Pinfya U-
distras 54*8 ; 77 23; see also
Hemachandra.
11a 8 a vi j ay aga ni s abdrtlmchan-
drik 100*27 ; his date 100 30.
Haradatta author of. Padamajar
26 ; personai details 39T0ff; his
originul name Sudarana 40-nl ;
his date 40 11; quoled by Vittha-
lchrya 45 '20.
llaraprasda Shastri 588 ; 82*n2.
Hrvali lll*n2.
Hari, see Bhartrihari.
ilaribhadra, seeHaribhatta.
Haribhatta or Haribhadra fui ber of
Kshemendra 97*29.
Hari-dkshita teaeher of Ngea
47*19, 48-nl.
Hridravaka mentioned inthc Nir-
ukta 8-nl.
Harilllmrita by Bopadeva 105*12,
105nl.
Harinmmrita 96; two such
grammars 113*16ff ; their tech
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 of Chandra-
kTrti 98-13 ; wrote a Dhtuptha
for the Srasvata with an im-
portantpraasti atthe end 98.15,
and a com. on it called Tara-
gil 103-9ff.
Harshakula teaeher of Udayasau-
bhgya 78*26.
Harshavardhana 53*20,
Haryaksha 35-nl ; 41-20.
Hemachandra 57-n2 ; mentions De-
vanandT as author of Jainendra
63-22; 66-20 ; 68*31; his Lignu-
Elana based on that of Ska va-
na71*22; biographicalmateriaf of
73-n2, couected by Biihler
73-17 ; his lif e 57 ; his birth-
pkce 73-23; received into order
47*10; consecrated sri orchr-
ya 74-16; attracts attention of Ja-
yasirhha 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 Amoghavntti
and to kat;yana abdnu
sana 76*12, 76-nl ; gives the
praasti of his patron in his Bri-
hadvritti 77*3ff; author of Dvy-
ruya-mahkvya 77*17 ; also of
ucces8ory tre>tises 77*28, but
not of tlie vivaraas or vrittis on
tliein 77*30ff; other works of He
machandra 80*20; does not use
pratyhras 81*6 ; 89-21.
Hemachandras 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 miscel-
laneous \vorks 61 ; the Prkrit
chapter from it 76*2; its later
independent history 81*l2ff;
Dhu hik on it 78*25; 89*21.
Hemdri minister of Mahdeva
and patron of Bopadeva 105*2ff,
105-nl.
Hemahasavijayagai vvrites on
paribhshs for Hemachandras
school 80*3ff ; his Nyyrtha-
majsh 80*7.
Hemanandanagai teaeher of a
ha jaklrt-i 100*22.
Hirdhara son of Vijjala-bhpati
115-29.
History of Ancient Indian Litera
ture, by Max Miillor, 4 - n l ; 4-n3 :
9-nl ; 12*nl ; 14-nl.
History of Indian Literature by
Weber 82*7.
Iliuen Tsang, his account about the
Aindra school 10-17 ; 19-3.
Humayun 93^9.
Huas, Gupta victory over, 58-26.
I
India; what can it teachus, 41*n3.
General ndex
Indian Antiquary 13; f. 19-n4;
30-n2; 31-nll 82-13 ; 32-nl;
33*n2 ; 35 n2 >, 37-n2; 41-n3;
61-nl; 04-nl ; 64-14 ; 67-n2
69-9; 69-n2; 72-bl; 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 Ashtdhyy; spoken
of as tbe first of grammarians
10*25, I0*n4 ; quoted by kat-
yana 70*, 70*n5; quotd by
Hemachandra 76*n2.
Indra (God) revcals grammar to
J inu 63*4, 63*n2-
Indradatta said to have een at
first a foliower of the Aindra
school 10*16; and a contempo-
rary 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 J ain
endra* stras 64*19 ; his 1wo ali-
ases 64*n4.
dvarnandas Vivaraa on Kaiy~
yatas PrdTpa 43*3.
I tsings account of J ayditya and
his work 35*25.
J
J agaddhara, Bha^g, author of B-
labodhinl 91.12.
J aganntha gives personai details
about Bhattoji 46.27f ; pupil of
the son of eshakrisha 4712,
48.nl.
J aganntha, author of Srapradi
pi k, quotes Kshemendra 98.1,
100.6.
J ahangir, Bmperor, 93.9 ; ,102.26;
102.n2. .i . * f .,
J ainendra quoted by ame in Bo-
padevas Mu^dhabc|wba 10.n3 ;
53.n2 ; mentioned %*' Vmun-
chrya 53.31, 53.n2 J ainendra
School 47 ; its traditional author
62.32 ; its strap^ha originally
belonged to Digambara J ains,
i7 [Sk.Gr.]
from whoin vetm baras bor-
Towedit63.nl ; its real author
Hevammdl 63.140:, alias Pfijjra-
pua 63.25, 64.n2 ; date of its
fo indaiion 48, 64.16ff ; the
Jain iidat stras ollude to dva-
rakrishu 64.19 ; character of
grumnn.v 49 it& >v t) versions
65.13fi' ; ts wrfnt of oriinlity.
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 Kaiyyata 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 leasl a contcraporury
of the author of tho Vskyapa-
dtya 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 Jay-
plda of limr 36.19 ; native of
Kthnlr 36.22.
Jayakrisha supplements tbe Tat-
tvabodhinl by a section on svara
and vaidik prakriy 48.5 ; his
date 48.8.
Jayakrislmas com. onthe Laghu-
siddlmntakaumudl 51.11 ; per
sonai details about him 51,1 l ff.
Jayanta author of Tattvachandra,
an abri graent of the Prakriy-
kaumudT 51.nl.
Jayantlkra quoted by Hemachan
dra 76. n2.
JavpT a supposed to be pupil of
KsliTrasvmin 52*2.
Jayasimha II (Chlukya emperor )
alias Vdirja, fellow-studcnt of
I)aypla 72.24if.
Jyasinfha-Siddharlja patron of
lien- chandra 74*2013:; stories
about him and Hemachandra
74*32; his death 75.1 ; the
*4,0 y y$tem$ o f anskrit ramma
abdanuriusona written at his
request 75-18.
Jina or Mahvlra, traditional author
of the Jainendra school G2.32f ;
08.4.
Jinadattasiri teaeher of Amora-
chandni 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 of a com. on Ktantra-
vvitli-pajik 80 u2 ; particuliirs
about lm 89.n2.
Jiuaprabodha, see Jinaprabhasri.
Jinarutna, see Jinendu.
Jinusgara 78.16.
Jincndrabuddlu author of Nysa
on Kik 25, 71.nl ; I is date
85 n2, 88 12; quoted by Bhmnh
85.1*2, 88*1811 ; called sometimes
Ethavira-lincndra 58.n2 ; etylcs
himRclf BodhisattvadeTyclirya
88.11 ; n t later than 750 A.D.
88 12 ; quoted by Vitthalchrya
45.20.
Jinendu alias Jinaratna author of
Siddhntarotna 102*27.
J i'vngosvtnirPs I l ari nmi uri ta
114.1.
Jnatilaka 103*12.
Jnc neira-saros vati author of tho
TattvabodhinT 47-25.
Jfi pakas 3517, 54.27ff, _54*n2,
56 25 *, see also Paribhshs.
Jodhapur (Yodhapura) 80.1, 80.nl.
Jogars j a s Pdapr ak ar a o sagati
84-20, App. 2 ; mentioned by
Mnkha 84,22 ; assigns the K
tantra Kritprakarau to kat-
yana 84 24.
Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal 33*n l .
Journal of the Pombay Branch of
the 11. A. S. 35.n2.
Junmrannndl author of the vritti,
RnsavatTon Kramadl4varas Sa-
ksbiptasri 109.27ff; the school
roccives name (Jaumara) from
bira 108.28; and (Rsavata)
from his vritti 109.32 ; ro-
vises PinTya Dhtuptha for
his own school 1 1 0 3f.
J upiter, twolve year cyclc of,
61*21, 6 4 n 5 .
K
Kachchyanas Pali Grammar
closely rclatcd to Tolkappijatn
11*5; and based on Ktantra
82-10.
Kadamba kings, Early, C4-23.
Ka era 16*30.
Khnu father of Mdhava 98*20.
Kaiyyata quotcs from tlie works
of Spisali and Kakritsna 10*3,
10*n2 ; 24*nl ; the PadamailjarT
based on his Pradpa 40*7, 40*n2 ;
his Pradpa marking end of se
cen-1 period in the histroy of
PinTya school 28 ; his pro-
bable date 41*29 ; personai de
tails about him 42*5f; quotcd
in the Sarva-dar4ana-sagrah*i
42*21, 42*n2 ; acknowledges in-
debtedness to Bhartnhari 42*25;
auotcd hy VitthalSclSrva 45*19 ;
59-21 ; 76*n2.
Ka1kala quoted by Hemachandra
76*n2.
Kala, Vaidyantba's com. on N-
gegas Vaiykaraa-siddhnta-
majsh 50*15.
Klpa-dhtustra 90*4.
Klpa grammar sai 1 to agrce with
the Aindra grammar 10*20 ; also
culled Kaumra and Ktantra
82*22f, 83*9f.
Kalpaka quoted by Hemachandra
^76*n2. _
Kalpavyakaraotpattiprastva by
Vanamli 82*n2.
Kalpin, tbe vehiele of Kumra
83*9.
Klc gurnam c of Ngoiibhatta
49*34.
Kalhaa 36*20.
Klidsa 57*22 ; 58*n2; 101*16.
Klik-sutra 73*nl.
Kalpastras,8amayasundaras com.
on, 63*2, 63*n2.
Ka!ya, Prince, patron of esha-
krisha 45*29.
Kalyasaras vatisLaghusras vata
103*24f.
Km raother of Bmabhatta
101* 12.
Kmadhenu bv Bopadeva 68*31 ;
quot.es Vardhainna 88*23; com.
on the authors Kavikalpadruma
105*11.
General lndex
KfmaBtra quote Gonardya and
GonikSpntra 88*5, 33*n3.
Kamboja 16*3$.
Kahdarpasi dhntaa com. on tho
Saupadma 112; 13.
Krkas, treatises on, 55*28.
Krikvnli by Nry*a Bhatt*
chrya 116*12.
Krttikeya rcvealed Aindra gnun-
mar to Saptavarnmn 10*22:
nee also Kumra.
Kakritsna. founder of a gramma*
ticaischool, 9*23 ; his grammar
consisted of stras in thice
Adhyyas 10 3, 10*nl |Kaiyyata
quotea from bis grammar 10*4;
10*n2 ; qtioted bv name in Bopa-
dovas Mugdhabodha P'-7, I0*n3.
Kik gives a rule of A p i li 9*24;
tells that Kakritsnas grammar
consisted of stras in throc
Adhyyas 10*3, 10 nl ; does not
anywhere mention the Aindra
school 11*E0 ; 20*8 ; 28*nl; its
date 35*20 ; a joint work of Jny-
ditya and Vmana 23 ; pcrhais
same as Vnttistra mentioned hy
Itsing 35*24 ;quotes Vkynpadl-
va, und so not oovlier than 050
A.D. 35*n2 ; Nysu onhy Ji-
nendrab^uldhi 2 5,35*n2;persona-
lity of the authors of36.1 lff ;
Bla'strEs cdition of 8G*n3 ;
nature of the 37*10 ; quoies a
a rule of Apiali 37 *8, 9 n3 ;
gives a ncw vrtika of tho Sau-
ilgas 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 indeb-
tedneps 38*5, 58*18 ; Harathiifas
Padamnfrjarl on the Kil 2f ;
47.13 ; emhodics PinTya Gaa-
ptlia 6025 ; apparcntly knous
the Jainendra G4T7. 64 n3.
Kikkra quoted hy Heninehan-
dra 76*u2,
Kikvivaranapun-jik, see Nysa.
Kntha author of Bara, a com.
ontbc 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
Mngdkalodha 108*10.
^Tvaras com. on the Saupadma
112*13; his Gaaptha to Sau-
frnclma 113*1 ; com. on it by
Rnmknta 113*2.
I vyapa mentioned by Priiri
12*n2.
Ksyape author of tho Chndra
recast, Blvabodha 62*20.
K tantra, c*losely rolated to Tulko p-
piyim 11*5 ; alsorhs PinTya
Udisutras 54*8 ; why so called
81 *^GfT; trnditiomd account of
its origin 64; its date 82*n3,
83-281V ; its tv. o reeensions
87*2511 : Fergnl cou m. on71;
its study no . eonfined to a few
distriets of I 'cngul 9032; its
bisfory in K mr 72; iri-
corporates Chandra Dlmtupithi
5*2*19 ; lakos o\er most of
the Pintva parilhslis 55*11;
81*7 ; intciolutioTis in tk(
Straptha 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. rn it l>y PriihvTv l nra
88*24.
Ktantravritlijiifijik, Tril odi ana-
dsas com. on Purgusimhas
vritti 89*111; suI m on mentari es
on it 89 7ff.
I uitl isari tsgara accc.nt ahml
Pnini,'bis picdcc csrors and com
teniporaries 10*13i, 19*9fT; 28*12:
29-7 ; its account aboi l Kty-
yna 31 3, 31-nl.
Knthavato, Prcfesso*, 63*8,
Ktthakyft meitioncd in the >i -
ukta 8 nl .
Ktyyana 7*17 ; 7*21 ; 7.n2 ; alias
Vararml u 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 the Vavnnas
more exad than that of fni ni
16*25 ; 17*4 ; 17 30 ; 18*14 ; trnid
to he a eoTitemporary of Pi ni
1910 ; hc prohi l l y cgardedl he
Udisulias as Pi ni s 26 18,
2G*nl ; he also probal y n ochlied
them 26*27 ; rncidicncd as ti c
Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar
sole author of the Udisfitra,
by Vimalasarasvati 27*2, 27*nl ;
by Durgasimha 27-4, 27*n2; Vr-
tikakras b fo. o him 28*5; con-
siderabL mterval between him
aud Pini 27*7, 27*nlt 84*19 ;
his date 17 ; his relation with
tho Naudas 29*6 ; nature of his
work 18 ; his tirst work, Vja-
saneyi Prtikhya 29*13 ; ex-
tent of his eriticism ori Pini
30/1 ; his criticism also construc-
tive 30*9, but in places unjust
30*13 ; did not uniformly follow
Pinis torunology 30*24ffi ;
probably belonging to a difor-
ent school of grammar from P-
ini 31 5 ; called a southerner
by Patafijali 31 *6, 31*n2 refers
to katyana 31*n3, kalya
31*n4, Vjapyyana 31*n5, Vy-
i 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.
KaumuJ 104*11; see Siddhntu
kaumud, Prakriy-kaumudT, and
Haima-kaumudl.
Kaumudkras as authors of mod
ern rovi vai of Pini 90.31.
Kaushtuki mentioned in the Nir-
ukta 8 ul.
Kautika, a Jain Tlrtha 98*11.
Kautillya 32.16.
Kautsa mentioned in the Nirukta
8*nl.
Kavikalpadruma by Bopadeva vvit.li
his o\vn com., Kmadh'nu,
105 lOf, 108*15(r ; com. by Uur-
gdsa 107*29.
Kavirja a Beugtl com. on Ktan
tra 90*13; quote- Trilochanadsa
an 1 is quoted by Harirma
90*14.
Kvyapraka 42*8.
Kerala 16*30.
Kern : Manual of Buddhism 59*u2.
KesarT, artiele in, by Mr. ltajavad<*
17.96*.
Keava, fatherof Bopadeva 104.29;
105*nl.
Keavadevat-arkapauchnanabhat-
tchrya,s Vykara adurghatod-
ghta on GoyIchandra*s com.
110*18, 110.n3. *
Keavavari pupil of Abhayaehan-
dra 7 243 ; author of a com. on
Goma;asra 72*15.
Kharatara-gachchha 99*1; 100.23.
Kielhorn, his ed. of. the Malibh-
shya 7*n2; 11*31 ; 19*27; 27.n 5 ;
30.n2 ;31*nll ; about Patujali
being distinet from Gonardlva
and Goikpntra 33.3 ; on tne
indebtednesa of the Kik to
Chandragomin 3721fl! ; about
Bhartriharis eom. on the Mah-
bhshya4l.n2 ; doubts existence
of Pujyapda as a real author
64*1 ff, 66*22; doubts existence
of Abliinava katyana 69.1ff ;
81*nl ; 89.n2 ; 89*n3.
KirtrjunTya auoted by Haradatta
39* n3.
Krtivijayagai teaeher of Vinaya
vijayagai 79*13. *
Ko abhatta nephew of Bhattoji
48.13,48*nl ; author of Vaiy-
karaabhushaa 48*nl, 48*14,
55*25-
Kramadvara founder of the Jau-
mara school 10830;his Sakship-
tasra probably an abridgment
of Pini 108*32f ; takes Bhar-
triharis Mahbhshya-dpik for
bis modei 109*8 ; his illustrations
mostly from Bhattikvya 109*9;
his erudition 109-21; his relation
to Pinis work 109*9f.
Krisbchrya, f atber of Rma-
chandra 45*7.
Krishrama teaeher of Kshem-
ondra 97.29.
Krislma-Yajus-Samhit anterior to
Pini 14*12.
Kriyratnasamuchchaya of Gna-
ratnasri 80.12ff,
Kshapaakas vritti on Udis,
uoted by Ujjvaladatta 54*14*
KMtemakara 102*1 ; father of
Lokeakara 102*13.
Kshemendra of Kmr 97*31.
Kshemendras com. on Srasvata-
prakriy mentions Narendra as
founder of the Srasvt ta 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
m
Kshlrasvmin author of f Dhtu-
vritti 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^vmin
52*9.
Kulachandra quoted by Bamadsa
90*15.
Kumara, reveals tho Kaumr or
Klpa or KtanLa grammar
83-gff.
Kumra pla 75.2ff his convorsion
by Hemachandra 75*8, the theme
of Vataplas drama Mobarja-
parajaya 759*11; requeBts Hema-
chandjra to write the Yoga^astra
75*16 ; his pilgrimage 75*19, and
death 75*25 ; 81*4.
Kum&raplacharita by Jirama-
ana 73* n2.
Kumrasambhava 105*1.
Kumrila 27.n5.
Kuaravdava mentionod by Pat-
ajali 31*nl0-
Kuni, mentioned by Patafijali
31*nl0.
Kutala commentator on Ktantra-
vritti-pajik 89*8.
L
Laghubhshva on the Srasvata, by
Raghuntna 103* l f .
Laghusrsvata of Kalyasaras-
vati 103*24.
Lahu-siddhntachandrik by R-
acmhandrraraa 10220, 103*22.
Laghu-siddhntakamnud of. Ya-
radarja, an abridgment of 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
of Ileraachandras Brihadvritti
4
Lahaur same as anoient SlStura,
the native place of Psini 19*2.
Lakshmevara 65*6.
Lakshmldevl patroness of Vaidya-
ntha 50*6.
Lakehtaldhara father of Bhattoji
, 46*23, 48-nl.
taEshmdhara son of Rmabhatta
101*17.
GakshuldharchS^a son of Vitiha-
lchrya 45*23.
Lakshi;.lvallabha:s UpadetamSl-
karik 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$ on53*20ff;
Vmanchrvas 53*29:8: ; of
Chandragomin 27*15 ; 60*12 ;
referred to by VmanSchrya
53*29, Ujjvaladatta, and Rya-
mukuta 60*20;of katyana
71*16, basis for Ilemaehanaras
work 71*22, 77*25;of Hema-
chandra77*23,77*nl ,with vivaraa
or vritti on it 77*31 ; and with a
Durapadaprabodba on it 80*2f ;
by Durgtma (Ktantra) 85*n2,
88*n3 ; 89*29.
Loknanda, drama by Chandra-
goinin ( ? ) 61*6.
Lokedakaras Tattvadlpiks on the
Siddntachandriks 102*14ff ; its
date 102*16.
M
Mdhava or Syaa author of 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 ; quo-
tes Haradatta 39*17 ; quotes
Slradeva 55*6.
Madhyamik besieged by Menan-
der 32*23.
Madhya-siddhntakaumudldf Vara-
darja, an abridgment of the Sid-
dhnta-kaumudl 51*4; com* by
Rmatamanfc51 10*
<34 Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar
Mgha about authorship of Udi-
stras 27*6 ; quoted by Haradat
ta 39*n3.
Mahbhrata,JHJhlshmaparvan*16*8.
Mahbhshyaed. of Kielhorn 7*n2 ;
9*20; does nowhcre mention the
Aindra scbool 11*30 ; 13*20;
14*n2 ; gives name of Pinis
mother 19*8; 19*23; 19*n3;
22*nl ; 23*nl ; 24-nl ; 25*25 ;
25*n5 ; gives 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
Nots on 30*n2,311*nl; describod
a<i a* summary of the Sagraha
of Vy i 31*n9 ; describes Kt-
yyana as a 1southerner 31; 6,
3l*n2; mentions a number of
vrtikakras followiug Kty-
yana 3l*nl0 ; 32*5 ; mentions
(4onardIya and Goikputra32*29,
32*n2; detailed exposition of data
i nfound in Indischc Studien
33*10 ; text of the, traditions
about, 33*241f, 41*18; does not
notice ali strs of Pini 34*3 ;
fanciful explanation of this fact
34*nl ; it mrks end of the first
period in the liistory of Pinya
school 21, 56*13 ; Chintmai
on, by Dhanevara 100*2.
Mahbhshya-ehintmani of Dha-
ucvara 100*2.
Mahbhahya-pradlpa as the basis
of Ilaradattas PadamajarT
40*7, 40*n2 ; itself indebted to
Bhartrihari 42*24 ; commentaries
ou, it by Ngjibhatta, Nryaa,
Jvarnanda, and others 43*111.
Mahbhshya-pradipoddyota of Na-
gojibhatta 43*2 ; 49*10 ; a com.
on it by Vaidyantha, called
Chhy 50*13.
Mahadova father of Vaidyanatha
' 50*6.
Mahdeva, author of Sabdasiddhi,
on Durgasimhas vritti 89*10.
Mahsdeva tho Vdava king of Dc-
vagiri 105*3.
MahvTra, see Jina.
Maho4wa precoptor of Kaiyyata
42*7.
Mahldhara 102*1.
Maitreyarakahita 39*nl.
Maitreyarakshita mentioned as a
writer on roots by Syaa 53*2.
Malayagiris abdnusana with
his own com. 80*31ff ; his date
81:4*
Mallintha, his commentary on the
iuplavadha 27*n3; quotes
Padamajan 39*18 ; quotes Bopa-
deva 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 Sras-
vata-p*akriy 98*2711:; personai
details about him 98*28ff; patro-
nized by Alpashi of Mlva 99*9.
Magarasa author of a com. on the
Chintmai 72*7.
Mikyadeva on Pinlya Udi-
straa 54*17.
Maiprakik by Ajitasnchrya,
a com. on the Chintmai 72*6.
Makha author of rlkatha-cha-
rita 84 22.
Manoram, see Prau hamanoram.
AlanoramkuchamardinT of Jagan-
ntha gives some personai de-
tail about. Plialtoii 46*28ff,
47*nl.
Mantras, Sceis of, C*nl.
Alanu mentioned in the Nirukta
8-ni.
Mannai bf Puddhisiu by Kern
59*n2.
Manuals, lesser, 98 ; characteris-
tic of the dedining age of a
school 115*11.
Matisgara teaelier <f Daylpla
72*24.
Mautii family 48*4 ; 51*12.
Mauryas, their linancial cspedient
mentioned by Patafijali 32*25.
Afaxima of interpretation, see
Paribhsh.
Max Miiller, History of Ancicnt
Indian Literature 4*nl ; 4*n3 ;
4*28 ; on intioduction of art of
writing 4*28 ; 9*nl ; 011 Pninis
date 14*3; 15*3 ; 28*15.
Medes not unknovni to Indians he-
fore Alexanders invasion 15*33.
Midin lll*n2.
Megha father of Trilochanad^a
89*6.
Meghadta, Mallinthas com,. Ou
57*22.
metai ndex. .
M egharatnas Srasvata vykaraa-
dhu hfkf or Sjlrasvjatadiik
09*14ff.
Meghavijaya tells of lUmttojis in-
debtedncss to lloiUachandra
46*20.
Moghavijaya author of Haimakau-
mudl 79*1811.
Menander, his sicge mmiioned by
Patafijali 32*24.
Merutugttcbryas Prabantihachin-
tmai 73*n2.
Miscellaneous Essays by Colebrooke
68-nl; 114-nl.
Mitkshar (grammar) Annambliat-
as com. on Pinib Abht-
dhyy 50*24. *
Mitkshar (law) the Vyavahra-
k a from it commented upon
by Vaidyantha 50*9.
Mitra, Rjendrall, on the Identi
fication of Vavanas with Icnian
Greeks 15*21 ; shows that Patar-
jali is not same as Gonardya or
Goikpntra 33*2.
Mohana Madhusudana brolhcr of
Tarkatilakabhattchrya 102*23.
Moharjaparljaya, dramaby Vaah-
pla, 75*8.
Mugdlmbodha quctcs by namo va-
nous grammarians 10*n3 ; 91*28 ;
104*23; 105*10; the object of
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 affect-
ing growth of 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 of Santanav-
chffrya as relativelv modern
author 27*n4; his Uddvota on
Kaiyyatas Pradpa 43*1; his com.
on the Prau hamanoram 47*18,
and on the dhytma-Rmyaa
47*21 *, his cotnmentary on Bhat
tojis abda-kaustubha 47*22; his
pupil, Vaidyanltha Ptiyagu a
47*23,48n*l; his wprks 32, 53*3;
his time 49-24S;; invited by
Hayi Joysimhu of Jeypur for an
asvamedha 49*3; personai details
about him 49*331! ; 55*7.
Naidnas mentioned in the ru
kta 8*nl.
Naivuktas mentioned in the Niru-
kta- 8*nl; 21*14 ; their vicw as to
root-origin of ali words 25*26.
Nanttas, their relation with Kutya-
yana 29*6. <
Nandaki orabhat as 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 of Kmabhatta
1 0 1 *1 2 .
Nryaas vivaraa on Kaiyyatas
Pradpa 43*2.
Nryaabhrati 101*35.
Nryaa Bhattchryas Krik-
vali 116*12.
Nrendra or Narendrchrya men
tioned as founder of Srasvata
by Kshemendra 95*18, by Amri-
tabhrati 95*22; by vitthala-
chrya 95*24.
Nighatu 6*nl; commented upon
by Yskas Nirukta 8*5.
Nighatu-vritti by Kshrasvmin,
quoted by, Devarja 52*10.
Nllakantha ukla, pupil of Bhattoji
47-n2, 48*nl.
Niptvyayopasargavritti by Ksh-
rasvmin 52*8.
Nirukta of Yska, its date 6; 7*9;
its nature 7; teachers and
schools referred to in it 8*nl;
introduetion to, by Pandit 8atya-
vrata Sraa^raml 14*17; 25*25;
25*n4; quotes ka yana 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 of Vijhal-
chrya 45*22.
S y s t m s o f S a n s k r i t G ra m m a r
Njsa on Kik by Jinendrabud-
dbi 35*n2, 25; othervvise known
as Kik-vivaraa-pajik 38*9;
not a single e^tion or a cornplete
manuscript o f it in existence 39*1,
39*ln; said to have been com-
mented upon by Maitreyarakshita
39*nl; 71*nl; quoted (?) by
Hemachandra 76*n2.
Nysas (three) on Hemachandras
Brihadvritti, the first identifies
most of Hemachandras quotations
76*n2; second by Udayachandra
79*2, with an abridgment which
traces most of Hemachandras
quotations 76*n2; 79*311; 76-21;
and the third anonymous Nysa
called abdamahsrava 79*7.
Nysa on the katyana-Sabdmr-
sana 39*nl; quoted ih Mdha-
vlya Dhtuvritti 71*31 ; quoted
by Hemachandra'76*n2.
Nysa,;a com. on the Amogha-vritti
quoted by Prabbchandrchrya
72*2.
Nysa of Ugrabhuti on Jagad-
dharas BlabodhinI 91*13.
Nyyapachnanas com. on GoyL
chandras vritti 110T7ff.
Nyyrthamajush of Hemahasa-
vijayagai 80*7; its date 80* n2.
O
Oka, Shastri, editor o f Kslirasv-
inins com. on Araarakosha 52*nl;
57*n2.
P
Padama brother of Vha a and
minister to Alpashi 99*6.
Padamajar of Haradatta 26;
quoted in the Mdhavya Dhtu-
vtti and by Mallintba 39*18;
quotea Mgha 39*18, 39*n3;
auotes Kirta and Bhattikvya
39*n3 ; based upon Kaiyyatas
Mahbhshya-pradlpa 40*7,40* n2,
43*7.
Padaptha of kalva 4*17 ; 6*nl.
Padma-(or Rudra-) kumra, father
of Haradatta 39*11.
Padmanbhadatta founder o f the
Saupadma school 111*2 ; personai
detail s about him 11 T2ff ;different
from the author of the Pmhoda-
rdivritfi 111*8 ; his date*lll*15;
the arrangemeot of his work
111 *n4; nis own com. on it
called Saupadmapajik 112*11 ;
his other works 112T9ff, ll2*n l. .
Padmanbhadatta, author of Pri-
shodardivritti, different from
the founder of Saupadma lll * 5 f f .
Padmapura 100*4.
Phiu mother of Hemachandra
73*25 ; gives her son over for
religious Service 74*7.
Palhavas, see Parthians.
P ya king, the Tolkappiyam read
before, 11*3.
Pachatantra story about Pinis
death by tiger 19*15, 19*n2.
Pachavastu, recast of Jainendra
67*14ff ; its introductory part in-
terpolated 67*20.
Pini, 3*nl ; his tenninology pre
u pposed by present Prt,ikhyas
5*2 ; , His 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 of the
verbal origin of 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 of1,0 to 41;
authors quoted by12*n2 ; his
date 11 ; posterior to Yska
14*14 ; must have known some
form of Grihva and Dharma
Stras 14* n S ; placed even before
Yska by Pandit Satyavrata Ss-
raarami 14*18; usually but
without snfficient evidence as-
sined to 350 B.p. 121; lived
prior to A l e s a n t e V invaaion'
eneral n d e x
17*19 ; lived 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
of 18*34 ; bis motneris name,
Dakshl 19*8,19*nl; his teacher said
to be Varsha 19*11; has the four-
teenpratyhra stras rovealedto
him 19*13, 23*18 ; story bout his
death by a tiger 19*14, 19*n2 ;
character of Pinis \vork 14 ;
his contribution to philology in
the Udistras 21*31 ; the tech-
nical devices used by him 13 ;
his method of indicating adhi-
kra-stras 24*n2 ; his Paribh
shs 25*4; his Dhtuptha
S5 T 4 f f ; his Gaaptha 23*24,
24*2ff, 25*20 ; ree sons for assign-
ing most of the Udistras to
his authorship 26-7 ; his Vrti-
kakras pp. 28-32 ; considerable
interval separtos him fromKty-
vana 27*7, 27*nl ; criticised by
Ktyyana first in the Vjasaneyi
Prti4khya 2916, and later in
the Vrtikas 29*20 ; his termino-
logy not strictly adlwred to by
Ktyyana 30*24ff; 38*nl ; Sicl-
dhntakaumud the raogt popular
introduetion to his grammar
46*11 ; he tacitly mployed many
Paribhshs current before him
54*21, 54*nl ; history of his
school, review of, 41 ; 56 7 ;
three stages in tho later history
o f liis school 56Tlf ; 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 of 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.
Pini, the poet, qiioted in Valla-
bhadevas Subhshitvali and in-
dentified with Pini the grara-
marian 13*10.
Paribhshs of Pini and of later
grammarians 25*4 ; 25*nl ; no
ancient collection has come down
27*19 \ oommonly aseribed to
V y T * i L 54*23 ; invention of
the sjst m ofi 35*10 ; Paribh
18 fSk. Gr.]
shs and Jpakas elaborated
betweeo 470-650 A. D. 35*17,
54*27fE, 54*n2f 56*25 ; 40 ; Ps-
pini tacitlv emplcyed many
current before him 64*21, 54*nl ;
Pinlya paribhshs borrowed
by the Ktantra and other non-
Piniya schools 55*10; Pri-
bhRh-sutra by katyana
71*14 ; of Hemachandra 77*26,
collected by Bemahasavijaya-
gani 80*4#; i me for Srasvata
94*11, 1 03$ *, acellection of
by GoyIchandra 110*15 ; o f Sau
padma same as Pinis 112*30;
112*19.
Paribhshvritti (to Mugdhaboda)
by Rmachand ra- vidybhs hana
108*21.
Paribhshvritti ( Saupadma ) of
Padmanbhadatta 112-211T.
Paribhshenduekhara by Ngoji-
bhatta 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 the Nir
ukta 8*nl.
Prshadas mentioned in the Nir
ukta 8*nl.
Paraus, see Persians.
Parthians not unknovvn to Indians
even before Alexanders invasion
15.33.
Ptajala-charita gives a fanciful
explanation of the f act that the
Mahbhshya does not notice ali
stras of Pnini 34-nl.
Patajali 12*6 ; 13*23 ; 14*1 ; 14*n2;
17*4 ; 18*11 ; gives the name of
Pinis mother 19*8 ; 24*13 ;
26 nl ; 27*21 ; quotes crtam me-
trical Vrtikas preceding those of
Ktyyana 28*4; mentions a
number of Vrtikakras follow-
ing Ktyyana 3l*nl0 ; his date
and personai history 20 ; main
arguments for assigning hii to
150 B.C. 3 2 * 1 ; speaks of Pu-
gkpamitra as his contei pprary
32*21; refers to a eiege of Menan-
der 32*24 ; mentions a fih&cial
expedient of the Mauryas 32.25 ;
13$ Sysiem 0/ S a n s k r i t G r a m m i t
a detailed exposition of his time
given in Indische Studien 33*10 ;
33*11 ; vindieates Pini ajgainst
the attacks o f -Kstyyaiia 33*18 ;
offcen uafair to Ktyyana 33*20;
hie imparalled style 33*21 ; his
ishfis 33*15 ; 35*3 ; 54*22 ; 59*10 ;
69*18; 76*n2; 103*3.
Pathak, professor, 10-nl ; 14*n2 ;
39.nl ; proves the historical exis-
tenoe of Pjyapsda G4*6fT ; his
paper on Jaiua katyana 84.14;
69*8fE, 76*nl ; his arguments for
the date of Jainendra 64*16f ;
65*n2 ; 67*24; 72*nl ; 72*nS ;
72 *n3.
Patrapuja 45-29.
Pauranic accouhts of frontier tribog
not rnere imaginative fabrica-
tions 16*6.
Paushkarasdi mentioned by Kt-
yyana 31*n7.
Pyagu a, sec Vaidyantha Pya-
gu a.
Persians not unknown to Indians
before Alogunders invasion
15*33 ; mentioned as raercenuvy
tighters by Pini 17*24 blotted
out as a political po\ver in 329
B.C- 17*26.
Peterson on Pninis date 13.511;
13*n2; 46*n3 ; 53*n2 ; 54*1 ; 65*4 ;
67*n2 ; 79*n5 ; 89*n2.
Philology, scienoe of, revolutioniz-
d by discovery of Sanskrit by
modern Europe 2*24 ; its postu-
late Yskas theory of the root-
origin of every noun 9*4.
Phitstras of ntanavchrya
27*12, 27*u4.
Pbonetics, hianuals on, 4.12-
Pisehel on the identitioation of
Pini th grammarian and P
ini the poe 13*10.
Plataafie 16*2.
Prabandha chintmai by Merutu-
gichrya 73*n2.
Prabandhakoa by Rjaekhara
73*n2.
Prabh, Vaidyanthas com. on
Bhatiojis abdakaustubfia 50*15.
PrabhKchandra quotecf by Pfijva-
psda 66* n t ; attempt to prove that
the name is ftctitious 6*18;
66*n3.
Prabhchandra author of Prabh-
vakacharltra 73*a2.
Prabhchandrchrya author o f a
Nysa on Amoghavritti 72*1.
Prabhvakacharitra by Prabh-
chandra and Pradyumnasri
73*n2.
PrabodhachandrikS by Vijjala-bhu-
pati 115*22E; com. on it by
Goplagiri 115*30-
Prabodhapraka, a iva grammar
by Blarmapachnana 114.12,
U4*19fiE.
Pradlpa, 8$e Mahbhshya-pradlpa.
Pradyumnasun reviser of Prabh-
chandras Prabhvakacharitra
73*n2.
Prkrit literature, growth of, as
affccting development of Sans-
krit 34*20.
Prakriykaumudl of ltmachandra
S30 ; the modei for Bhattojie
Siddhnta-kaumudT 45*10; com-
mented upon by Vitt.halSchrya
in the Prasda 45*14 ; by eska-
krisha in tho Praka 45*25 ;
and by othcrs 46*nl ; an, abridg
ment of it by authors pupil
5Tii 1 ; 72*21 ; 109*3.
Prakriyamai by Dhanevara 100*3.
Prakriypraka of eshakrisbna
45*25. *
Prakriyaagraha of Abhayachan-
dra, recast of katyana ab
dnusana 72*11.
Prasda of Vitthalehrva 45*14 ;
its date 45*16 ; quotes Narendr-
chrya 95*24.
Pratparudra of Telufigaa 101*10*
Prtikhyas, primitive, presup-
pose art of writing 4*30 ; present
post-PinIya 5*2 ; their eon-
tribution to Science of grammar
5*1 Ol; their technical terms
identifiod by Dr. Burnell vrith
those of 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 Ks-
tantra 82*13 ; 12*6 ; 66-U2, 86*nl;
Vjasaneyi Prtikbva the first
gramiuatical work of KStySyana,
tee under Vjasaneyi.
Gentral lnd*x
m
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 ; Vs-
jasaneyi-Prti4khya Pratyli-
rus same as Piinis 29*n2; their
number reduced by Chandrago-
min 69*15; Pinlya retaihed
by Jainendra 66*5 ; o f kat-
yana 70-13;of Malayagixi.Sl*6;
not used by Hemachandra
81-6; Pinlya dispensed with
by Ktantra 86*23f; their upe
without its by the Srasvata
04*5 ; 118*23 ; of Bopadeva
106*6, called Sanihrastrna
106*23 of Pini retaiued by
Saupadma 111 *2i.
Prau ha-manoramS BhaUojis own
com. on the Siddhnta-kaumud
47.7 ; distinguishes betweon the
two authors of the Ks&k 38-nl^
acknow!edges indebteuness to R
pamala 46*nl ; dovs seunt justice
to he rnemory of eshakri-
sha 47*1 ; its abridgment called
Bla-manonim 47*8; Jagann-
thas com. on it called the Mano-
ramkuchamardinl 47*18 ; anoth-
er com. on it by Nge4a called
abdaratna 47*18, 49*16 ; 107*7.
Piishodardivvitti of Padmanlbha-
datta 111-8; its date 111*9,
l l ! * n l .
Pritbvldhara, Mahmahopdhyyft5
author of sub-com, on Vardha-
rnnas Ktantra-vistara 88*21.
Pivapda an alias of Devanandl
63*25 ; 64*n2; mentioned as the
founder of a Dravi a-sagha
65*4 ; possibiiity of other name-
sakes 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.
Purusbotfama 97 23.
Pttrushottamadevas vritti on Udi
quoted by Ujjvaladatta 54*15.
Pnshpamitra alluded to as contem-
porary by Patafijali 32*21, and
probablj Patajatis own patron
32*28. *
R
*
Racea, impact of different, as in
fluence; study of grammar 2*31.
Ragbfcnandanaili romni 84*25-
Rftghuntlm author of the Laghu-
bhshya on the Srasvata 103*1 ;
pupil of Bliaptoji 103*6.
RaghunSthabhattn father of Jaya-
kriahua 48.4 * 51*11.
Rjadhanyapura 79*n2.
Rja4ekhara*sPrabandhako4a73*n2.
Rjataragilaccount of thevicisai-
tndes in the text of the Malt-
bhshya 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 Pata-
jali 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,
Rmabhattl, see VidvatprabodhinT.
Rmachah ras Prakriykaumudl
30 ; his date 45*6 ; personai de
tails about him 45*6 ff.
Rlmaohandra, commentator on K-
tantravnttipajik 89*8 ; 90*16.
Rraachandras couimentary on the
Saupadma 112*14.
Rmachandra-chakravarti vrritea
sub-com- to SrlpatPs supplement
to Ktantra 90*20.
Rmacbandr4ramas Siddhnta-
chandrika 102*11 ; commentaries
on it 102*13 ff ; the authors own
abridgment of it 102*19.
Rinadsa 90*15.
Rmadeva the Ydatji king of
Devagiri 105*4.
Ramkntas com. on Sanpadma-
Gaaptha 113*2.
Rmak ra grandfather of l*oke&-
kara 102*14.
Rmakrishchrya gra dfath of
VittHalchSrya 45*22*
#4
t4* S y s t t m s o f S a n s k r i t Grammar
Rmnanda quoted by Durgdsa
107*30.
Rraadarmans com* on the Madhya-
Siddhntakaui dl 51*10.
Rraasimha patron of NgojibhaUa
50*1.
Bftmlrfraina, see Bhanudlkshita.
Rmatarkavgl^a, commentator on
Mugdhabodha 107-24; his supple-
ment to Mugdhabodha 108-10 ;
his Udikotia 108*22.
Ragciirjras edition of akaras
Sarvasiddhnta-sagraha 105'n3.
Rafigoii-dks hita brother of Bha -
oji 46-24 ; 48*nl.
Raaagagdhara 49-27.
Rsavata another name for the Jau
mara school 109-32; quotedin Bha-
ratas com. on Bha t.ikvya 110*1.
RasavatI JumaranandIs vritti on
Kramadldvaras Sakshiptasra
109*31.
Rsh rakta 69-15.
Ratalma 79-n3. *
Ratnkara 101*35.
Rvamukuta mentions Chndra
Lignusana 60 20.
Recasts of Ash;dbyyl 29 ; 57*2.
Rigveda, grammatical speculationg
in 1-25 ; its Sarahit anterior to
Pini 14*12.
Roman conqueat, infiuencihg study
of Greek grammar 2-n2.
Royal Asiatic Society, the Bombay
Branch, Journal of, 35*n2.
RpagDBvmin'e Harinmmritam
113*17.
Rupaml of Vimalasarasvati men
tions Vararuchi alias Ktyyana
as author of Udistras 27*nl ;
it is a recast of Ashtdhyyt
44*2 ; its date 44*5, 44*nl 5 iti
arrangement of topics 44*6 ft. ; in*
debtedness to it acknowledged by
Bhattoji Drkshita 45*nl.
Rpaii dhi, an abridgment of SS-
ka ljana Sabdnutisanu, by
Daypla 72-23.
Ruv&li 5M6.
Badra(or Padma*)kuraara, father of
Haradatta 39-11.
5
Sabaraavjnin 53*20-
Babdakaustubha by Bhattoji,. a
com. on the Ah dhyyt 47*12 ^
pjrobably not completed by the
aathor 47*14, 47*n3 ; com. on it
called Visbaml, by Ngea 49*18 ;
another com. called Prabli, by
Vaidyantha 50*15 ; 107-7.
Sabdamahrava-nysal an anony-
mous com. on Hemachandias
Brihadvritti 79*7.
Sabdnutoana of 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 Gaaratna-
mahodadhi 68*16 ; in the Mdha-
vya-Dhtuvritti G8-17 ; com-
mentaricfl on it G8-14 ; accesBory
treatises on it G8 -14; not the same
as ancient kat,yana 52 ;
proof for this 69 nl ; quoted as
abhinaaa by Bopadeva 08-31.
abdmisana-Bnhad vritti, Hema
chandras com. on his own
'ibdniitsana 76-17 ; three
dilf-'rent Nysas on the same
76-21, 79-2, 79-7 ; its quota-
tions mostly identified by
the first Nysa 76-2 ; contains
Siddharjas ras' asti 77*3 if; its
abridgment perhaps by Hema-
ohandra himself 76*8 ; com-
prehends also accessory treatises
of the school 77-28; phu hik
on it 78-6 ft ; a Laghu-nysa on it
79*1.
abdaratna, Ngojis com. on the
Prau hamanoram 49-16; a com.,
, Bhvaprakik, on it by Vaidya-
ntha 50-15-
abdrthachandrik by Hasavija.
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 of Delhi,
honours Chandraklrti 98*17
98*nl.
Gm&al in& t*
i #t
Saiva grammars 114-1 t
k 16-31; 17-31 ; 18-12; tee also
Scythiana 18TB.
lkalya, Padaptba byt 4*18; men
tioned in the Nirukta 8 n l ;
mentioned by P ini 12*u2 ,
quoted by Ktyyana 31*n4.
akapGni mentioned in tbe Nirukta
8 . n l .
katSyana (aneient) quoted by
name in Bopadevas Mugdhabo
dha 10*n3 ; mentioned by Pnini
12*n2, 68*25 ; often considered
author of tho Uudlstras 25*24 ;
no work of the atdejot akn-
yana now extant 26*5 ; quotcd by
Ktyyan 31*n3; mentioned in
the Mahbhshya 25*n5, differ
ent from later ( Jaina ) nka-a-
yana 52 ; 80 31 ; 81*8; crulited
with the authorship of the Krit
prakaraa as incorpotated in tlie
Ktantra 84*24, 87*20.
katyana (Jain) Prof Patlmks
paper on, 64 14 ; 64-n4 ; his
date 65*1, 69 12 ff ; his in-
clebtediess to Jainendta 65*2;
also author of the Amogbavritti
69*13 ; was a vetmbara Jain
?3*nl ; nature of his abdnu-
bana 53; draws freely upon
the Jainendra 69*20; many of his
stras same as Pinis 69*22,
69'n3, or on!y slightly changed
70*1, 70*nl ; indebtedness to
Chandragunin 70*2ff, 70 n2 ; t.>
Jainendra 70*5, 70*n3, 70 n4;
quoteB Indra 70-7 ; the *extent
and arrargemmt of his &ab-
dntdsana 70*10ff; the authors
quoted by him 70. n5; his f rantic
effort to secure brevity illustrated
71*6; his technical terminoiogy
71-7; other works by akatyana
54; comm. on his abdanu^E-
sana 71*30ff ; recasts of it
72*10ff; later ousted by Hema-
cbandras abdnusana 73*3,
which however freely draws
upon i t 76*13, 76.nl, 76*n2.
Ssketa besieged by Menander 32*23.
kta grammars 114* 1 Off.
ltura PtTtaPs nativeplace 19*1;
identified with Lahaur in STusisf-
2&1valley 19*2 ; now an obscure
and deaerted place 19*6.
lllturlya an alias of Pnini 18*34 \
18nl.
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 Pinis
date 14* i t .
Samavasundaiastis com. on the
Kaipasutrns 63*2, 63*n2.
Samhits, Taittirlya, grammatical
speculations in, 2 2; the language
of Saiiihi M different from that of
Brhmaas, 3 9 ; the Sumhitl of
Hik, Sama, and Krisha*Yajus
anterior to Pini 14* 12-
Bangula, a town dtstroyed by
Alexander aiM raentipned by
Pnini 17*llff.
Saghopati or Baghtvcra 98*29 ;
99*8.
Sagralm, an extensive work of
Vy(i 31*18, and described as
the basis for Muhbhshya 31*n9.
Sais, sce Technical terrns.
Ssltala, see SaDgala.
Sakala, Prince who founded the
(ity of Bangala 17*13.
akarchryas Sarvasiddbnta-
sagraha edited by Eagohrya
105*n3; his rlra-bhshya 38*22*
akhabasti insription 65*6.
Skbya-kSriks 64-20.
Sakshiptasra of Kiaraadlvara
108*82 ; its relation to the Asbt-
dhyyT 109*10 ff ; J urnai anatdfs
vritti on it 109 7ff.
Sanskrit grammar, schools of, near-
ly a dozen 1*10 ; writers on, at
least three hundreds 1*11 ;
treatises on, over a thoueand 1*13;
seeunder schools.
ntanavehrya, author of the
Phitsutras 27*12 ; mentioned as &
relaitiveljr modern writer 27*n4.
Saptaati, coui. on, by Ngea 49*7.
Saptavarman reccived revelation of
Aiodra grammar from Krttikeya
10*22 ; see also Sarvavarman*
141 $y s tem s o f S a n s k r i t G r a m m a r
Bra by Kdlntha, a com. on the
PrakrifSkatimudl 40*hl.
Sffrapradpik by J agannStha 9 8 1 ,
100<8. *>
Sra-SiddbntkannfdT of Varada-
rja, an abridgment of the
Siddhntakaumu.11 51*4.
Srasvata school 43.29;81*24;its date
73 ; its original extent 92*nl ;
two reoensions of its Strapfha
92*l ; its special features 74 ;
its technical terms 94*116 ; no
paribhshs to it 94*21; and no
Udis 94*29 ; the school not
mentioned bv Bopadeva 92*4, not
fcnown to Hemachmdra 92*6;
its traditional founder 75^
vrtikas to it 94*31, 05'2; com. on
it by Vitthala 89.2; inost of the
comm. o it later than 1450 A. D.
92.8, and come from Northern
India 92.14; comm. on it in-
dependentlv Tf the Sarasvata-
prakriy 78 \ the school
encouraged by Muhammedan
miers of India 93 4fT, ils dbridg-
ments 103.216; a gencral review
of its history 80 ; 4no supplc-
raents to it 104.6 ; tho school
aHected by modei n revival of
Pini 92*20 ; its present status
104 21.
Srasvatahhshya of K&nltha
100*96.
Siasvata-dlpik, see Srasvata-
vykarana-d hu hi k.
Srasvata-mlastiaptba 92.nl.
Srasvataprakriy of Anubhtf*
svarpachrya 92.hl, 76; its
straptha not the oiiit&l fitra-'
p ha 92 n l ; commentators on
it 96.206, 77 ; comrnentaries on
Si .svata indep ndeutly of this
78 ; vrtikas tmbeded in its
straptha 95*96: ; com. on
it by Kshemendra 95.17 ; by
Amritabhrati 95.20.
Srasvataprltkrivvrtika by Saha-
jaklrti 100.24 ; its date 100.24.
Srasvatapraeda by Vsudeva-
bha ta 98.246: its date 98.26,
98.n2.
Bi asvatavykaraa-dhuhik or
Saraevata-dlpik bv Megharatna
99.146. *
SarasvatI reveals Srasvata stras
x 95*5.
rTra-bbshya 33*22,
Srtha 105 5.
SarvaBiddhSntasagraha of 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 ;
ovidencefor lator interpolations
in his original straptha 65;
87*176; the Kiitprakaraa not
by him 84.186, as also certain
other sections 85.56, 85. 166;
nature of his work 65 ; the ex-
tent of his work 87*36.
Satabalksha mentioned in the
Nirukta 8*nl.
ata^lok by Bopadeva 195-13.
tavhana, patron of arvavarman
82.25, 82.n3.
Satl mother of Nge^a 49.35.
Sat-vritti on Udis quoted by
Ujjvaladatta 54.15
Satvarja disciple of Bhnudlkshita
* 48.nl.
Satynanda, teaeher of Itvarnanda
the*author of Mabbhshyapra-
dlpa-vivaraa 43.3.
Satyaprabodhabhattraka 97.18.
Satyavrata SmaramI on Pninis
date 14.17.
Sp-ubliava 35.nl ; 41-20.
fifMingas mentioned by Patafijali
31 . nl 0 f * o ne of their vrtikas
<|uoted by the R4ik 37 11.
Saupadma sOhiool absorbs PinTya
* UTlistme 54*9.,
Saupadma school of Padmanlbha-
4dattft 90 ; its special features
91 ; its arrangement l l l . n 4 ;
commentaries on it 92 ; its pre-
sent status 94.
Sanpadma-makaranda by Vishnu-
midra 112*15.
Stnipadmapajik, Padmanbhas
own com. on the Saupadma
1 1 2 *10.
Saurjabhagavat mentioned by Pat
ajali 31.nlQ.
Savi Jeysiiha invites Ngea for
an avamedha 49.29.
Bvaa or Mdhava author of the
Dhtuvritti 52.286. *
Gmtralirifck MJ
i: .............
iahapi patron of l agannstha
46-
Schools o f Sanskrit grammar,
nearly dozeu 1,4:0; Aindra school
of Grammarians by Dr. Burnell
. n l ; the DTkshita aohool 48 n l ,
38. The school of Pini 10 to
41 ; review of its metory
41; three stages in its kter his-
torv 56.11fE. Chndra school 42
to 46; its branebing off from
the Piinlya school 56.27; ts
later history 46; why dis-
appeared from l dia 81.28ff.
The Jainendra school 4750 ;
its kter history 50. i The
school of kaiayana 51-55; its
kter hiatory 55 l a r l y secta
rian schools 4262. Rise of
popukr schools of grammar
56.34 * 63-^80 Hemachoodra
school 56~b2 ; its kter historv
62 ; limited influence 80*221?.
i lie Ktantra school 63~72; its
early history 67 ; its history
in Bengal 71 ; in Kt. mir 872.
The Srasvata school 73-^80 j
general review of its liistory 80*v
The school of Bopadeva 81-85 ;
its later histoiy 84. The Jaumara
school 86-89 ; its present status
89. The Saupadma tchool *
90-94 ; its present status 94,
Later sectarian schools 95-97.
Scythian imasions as afiiecting de-
velopment of Sanskrit 34.2$,;
thepeoplenotnnknownto In iarik
before Alezanders mvaaion
15.33; 17*32 ; 4hek first kig
Deioces 184.
Sectarian schools, earty 42-62*4
later 95-97.
Senaka mentioned by Pini 12mS.
esha-Krisha author of Praks'a
on Rhiachandras Prariycau-
raudi 45.25; personai detfils
aout him 45.27f; the precep-
tor of Bhattoji 46-3, who is how-
ever not gratef ul to his memory
46.29 ; his date cir. 1600 A. I).
46.4 ; Jaganutha his sons pupil
47.2, 48*nt
Sesha-Nrisimbasuri father of Sesha-
Krisha 45*26.
Sesliarja, m Patajali.
esbatkiinaids com. on the Fari-
*bhshendu4ekhara 55*9.
Sheshagiri Bhast i 39a2; 40 a t .
SiddhanandIquoted by skatyana
70* n5.
Siddhntachandrik by Rima-
chandrdrama 102 4 0 ; | t f com
mentaries 102*186:; the authors
own ahndgment of it called
Lagbu-SS dhntachandiik vritb
a com. 102-191L
Siddhntakaumu 11 of Bhatf,oji
modelied upon Kroacbandras
Prakriy3kaumucU 45 10 ; im-
portanco of the Siddhntakau-
mudl 31 ; its presumed indebted-
ness to Hemachandra abdmi-
4sana 46 22 ; authors ovtn com.
on it in two recensions 47.7ff ;
com. TattvabodhinT by Jimnen-
drasaras\ati 47.25, with a stip-
plement 1>y Jayaknsha 48.4;
com. on itby Nsgojibhatta 49.15;
its abridgraents 34 ; its rektion
to the Ilaimakaiunudl 79.2I f ;
109.3.
Siddbuntar^tna by Jinendu alia
Jinaratna 102*27.
Siddlmrja, see Javasiiiiha.
Siddhasena quotcd by Pjyapda
66*n2 ; not a grammarian at ali
according to Hemachandra 66.22.
Siksh ( of Pini) not a very an
cient woik 27*12 ; a stanza from
it found in tho Mahbhshya
7*15, 27*n5; the same com-
mented upon by Bhartrihari
- 27rii5 ; and rjuoted by Kumfrila
27n5 i 60*30.
ilhra 67*4.
Singaror(^ Srigaverapttra.
* Siradevas treatke on Paribhshs
quoted in the Mdhavlya-Dhtn-
viifcti 556.
ishyalekh, poem by Ch&ndra-
gomin (?) 61*6.
Siuplavadla 27* 3. *
kuprabodha by Pujarja *97*8.
iva revealed the pratyshra stras
to Pihl 19*13 ; 23*18 ; 83*6 ;
(ass vowels) 114*22-
ivabhatta father of Ngojibh&fta
49*34.'
ivnanda 5M0*
t f , . ' yst*ms lBf am & tit ram m r
--------- i. ,jk.... ...............
6ivarma Cbakravarti writes sub-
com. to rlpatis supplement to
Ktantra 90$1.
Siwairj alias Srasirhba of Jodha-
pur 80*lfr 80*n l .
Skandagupta 58*27.
toka-vrtikas, their number 31*23,
their authorship diseussed,
81*utl.
Smith, Vincent, Eailv History of
India, 17*5 ; 17*16 ; 82*n3;9l*nl.
Somachandra, second name of He-
macbandra 74*12.
Somadevas 'version of 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 of different, as
influencing study of giaminar
2*21.
Sphotyana montionevl by Pnini
12*n.
rauta-autras of Ktyyana 29*nl.
rvaa Bclgoa 39 nl ; 71 n l .
rTdatta quotcd by Pjyapdi
66*n2.
ndatta grandfather of Padmana-
bhadatta 111*5.
ridhara Chakravartis com. on tbe
Saupadma 112*13.
rTkanthacharita by Makha 84*22,
rlmla family 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 of Padman
bhadatta 111*7.
feplraga teacher of Mdhava 98*20.
rdesha, ee Patafijali,
rl vallabha-vchanchrvas com.
on Hemachandras Lignuti-
sana 79*48#.
rutapia auoted by Hemacbandia
76*n2 ; also in the Amoghavi itti
78* n2.
Sthaulsbtlvi mentioned in the
Nirukta 8*nl.
Sthavira-Jinendra, m Jinendsa-
buddhf.
Sthiramati, translatdr of Chndra
tests in Tibetan language 6M9*
Suhandhu 18*22 ; 14*1.
Subhshitvali of 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 Chandra-
kliti witli an iinportant pras' asti
at the end 98*7fft
Subodhinl of Sadnanda 102*14f.
SubodhinI hy Gopllagiri on Vij-
jalabliupatis Prabodhaprakda
115*30.
Sudarana an alias of Haradatta
40-nl*
SudhhiharI, com. on, by Ngea
49*7.
Srasimha al as Siwairj of Jodha-
pur 80*lf ; 80*nl.
Sutra-form not newtoPrm 13*nl ;
possihly due to scarcity of wnt-
ing matmial 23*6.
S>apna-Vsavadattam of Bhasa
13*28.
Sydisamuchcha} a o f Amarachan-
dra 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
102*26.
General Index
Tattvabodhinl by Jnendrasaras-
vati, a com. on Siddhntakau-
mudl 47*25; supplcmented by
Jayakrisba 48-4; its nature
48*2fl:, and date 48*8.
Tattvachandra, Jayantas abridg
ment of the Pralriykaumudl
51*nl.
Tattvadlpik by Loke4akara 102*15-
Tattvrtharjavriika 63*n4.
Technical devices used by Pini
13.
Technical terms (Sajs) of primi-
tive Prti4khyas 5 1 3 ; identifiod
with those of Aindra school by
Dr. Bnrncll 5 n2; of Yaka
and Pini compared 6*n2 ; pre-
Pinlya not ali necessarily of
the Aindra school 11*25 . those
of KtySyana not always t hc eame
as those of Psini 30*24ff ; of
DevanandI 66*5. 66*nl;of ka-
tyana 71*85; of the Ktanira
86*26 ; of the Srasvata 94*6,
94*1 lff ; of later sectanan schools
106*16; of Bopadeva 106*20,
106*n2 ; of Saupdina, same as of
Pini 111*20, ll2*2ff; of the
Harinmrmita 113-23A: ; of Pra-
bodhaprakia 114*22Lf-
Tibetan translations of Chndra
treatises 58*11; 61*18; of the
Ktlpa-Dhtsutra 90*5.
oda I02*n2.
Tolkappiyam, the Tamil grammar,
full of Aindra terminology 11*3,
82*12 ; read in the Pa va Kiugs
assembly 11*4 ; is closelv related
to Ktantra to KachchSyanas
Pli grammar, and to the Prti4-
khyas 11*7.
Trik adesha Ul*n2.
Trilochana ( not = Trilochanadsa )
author of the Uttarapari&sh a to
ripatpg supplement to Ktantra
90*22f.
Trilochanadsa quoted by ViUhals-
ebrya 45*19; his Ktantravritti-
pajik 89*1 ff ; quoted by Bopa
deva and Vi hala 89*2f ; per
sonai details about l im 89*5f; sub-
com. on his work 89*7ff, 19*16 ;
distinot from the author of the
Ktantrottarapari&&hta 89*nl;
quoted by K avi rja 90*14 ; differ-
ent from Trilochana 90 22.
U
Udayachandra author of an exten-
sive 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 of the
phu lk on the Prffkrit cbap-
ter of Hemachandras Brihadvritti
78*25.
Ddavasing of Udepur 93*13.
Uddana, ml Udayana.
Uddyota, seeMahbhshyapradIpod
dyota.
Udyna same as Yusufzai valley
19*3.
Ugrabhuti author of Nysa on Ja-
gaddharas 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 Chndra-
Lignudsana 60*20 ; quoted bv
Padmanbhadhtta 111*13,1 ll*n2 ;
112*29.
Udiko^a (to Mugdhabodha) by
krnatarkavttga 108*22.
Udiptha 39, see Udistrae.
Udistras of Pini 21*31 ; com-
monly aseribed to ka yann
25*246:, 25*n4 ; their technical
terms and annhandhas same as
Pinis 26*10 *, probably regard-
ed 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 ; Pinis
Udi sutias absorbed by other
schools 54*8; Ujjvaludattas vritti
on them 54*11 ;otner ccmmentators !
54-146F; Chndra Udi 60*10, '
its mode of presentation 60*14;
that of ka yana 71*15; of He-
maehandra 77*23, with vivaraa
or vritti on it 77*31; of Ktantra
in tro recenslons; that of Durga-
i*[Sk,Gr.]
146 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar
sirhhaOOl, and that curront in
Kmlr 85n2 ; none for Sars-
vata 94*20, 103*8 ; of GoyIchan-
dra 110*14 ; of Padmanbhadatta
the f.onnder *hf Saupadma 112*19.
Udivntti (Saupadma) of Padrna-
nbhadatta 112*24 ; its arrange-
ment ll2*25fT.
IJpadeamlkarik of Lukshml-
v&llabha 63*3.
Updhvva qu<ted by Hemachan
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 of I)aypla 72*24,
and a Chlukya emperor 72*25.
Vha a father of Madana and
hrother of the imiiister Pndama
99*7.
Vaidya conmuinity of Bcogal as
producing rnany wiiters on K
tantra 90*25-
Yaidyantha Pyagu a, pupil of
Ngea 48*nl ; coruraents upon
abda-kftufttubha 47*23; his works
32, 50-31F, 55 9 ; personai de
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
Ngea 49*20 ; a com. on it by
Vaidyantha* called Kala 50*14.
Vjapyyana raentioned by Kty-
yna 31*n5.
Vtijasancyi Prtikhya, the first
rammatical work of Ktyyana
29*11 ; posterior to and based
upon Pini 29* n2 ; some of its
rules repeated in an emended
form as vrtikas 30.5, 30 nl ; re-
fer to katyana 31*n3, and
k lya 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
of Vydis Sagraha 31*n9 ; rncn-
tions Baiji and others 35*nl ;
by Bhartrihari 27 ; its nature
41*llff ; gives the earlicst re-
forence to Chndra and men
tions bis predecessors 41190',
57-20 ; 42-n3 ; 55*23 ; 59*nl.
Valhibhatleva in the Sublishit-
vali quotes Pini the poct 13 7.
Vlmki-Rmyita, commentary
on, by Ngea 49*G.
Vrnana, one of tlie authors of the
Kik 35*n2, 3G-8, ; his centi i-
bntion to the Kik distin-
guished from that of Jayditya
36-4, 3 6 n l ; minister of Jay-
plda of Kmli*, sometimes iden-
lied with Jayditya 3G*21 ;
quoted by Vitthalchrya 45-20 ;
identified with tlie author of a
Lignusana 54*2, quoted by
Hemachandra 7G*ri2 ; and by
Bhattoji 107*9 : see Jayditya.
Vmanchrya author of a Ling-
nusantt 53*28 ; identified with
author of the Kik 54*2 ; ear
lier writers mentioned by him
53*30f ; mentions Chndra Li-
gnusana 60*20.
Vmanendra-sarasvati 47-2G.
VamTvdanas com. 011Goylchau<i-
ras vritti 110*20.
Vanamiis Kalpavyakaraotpatt i -
prastva 82*n2.
Varadarja author of abridgments
of the Siddhntakaumud 51*4 ;
62*21 ; 104*11.
Vlravanea author of Amn a-
sriti, a crn. on the Prakriy'
kaumudl 46*nl.
Vararuchi (alias Ktyyana) said
to have been at first a follower
of the Aindra school 1015 ;
mentioned by Vimalasarasvati as,
author of the Undistras 27.nl,
27*6; 111-nl; 53*24; 53*30; 53*n2
85*nl ; credited with authorship
of the Ktantra-kritprakarana
General Index
*47
84-26, 87*2;, vrilh a com. on
the same 85-nl.
Vardhunna author of Gaarvt-
namahodadln 52-12, quoies KshT-
rasvmin 52*4 ; his date 53*15%
88*n4 ; not same as the author of
Ktantravi stara 88*20ff.
Vardhamna author of Ktantra-
vistara 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 Ivara-
krisha 64-n4.
Vrsbyyai mentioned in the Nir
ukta 8-nl.
Vrtikas of Ktyyana 14*5 ; their
number 30*1 ; some anetnend-
ed statement of Vjasaneyi ?r-
tikhya rules 30*5, 30*nl ; proae
and matricai 30 L5.
Vrtikakura quotcd ty Hemachan
dra 76*n2 ; $ee Ktyyana.
Vrtikakras before Ktyyana es-
pecially the loka-vrtikakras
28-4; the question about the
authorsUip of lliese last, discussed
31 - n l l ;after Ktyyana3T20iT,
31-nlO
Vsavadatt, an khyyik nien-
tioned in the Mahbh&hya 13-20-
Vsudevabhattas Srnsvataprasda
98-24H:; his date 98*26, 98*n2.
Vasu rat preceptor of Bhar rihari
and disciple of Chandra 59*1.
Vtsyyana quotes GonardIya and
Goikaputra 33*4.
Vffya agachcbha 80-9.
Vedgas, 6-nl ; 12-n2.
Vedas, gramniaticsl speculations
in, 2; A retie Home in the
3-n2 ; collected into family-
books 4*9 *, 611i ; liels of difficult
wordg from them collected 8*7;
nature and utility of their study
8*17.
Vedic Gods, their naraes 8*9; their
cosmological funetions 8*18.
VeI mother of Vaidyantha 50*6.
Vidvatprabodbinl or KmabhatrtT
of KSmabhaUa 101*3; tbe xnany
p r a s astis embodiedin it 101*56:;
101*2411.
Vidvvglda quotes Durgdsa
107*32.
Vidyfvinoda, father o f Nyya
I inchnana 110*17.
Vijaynanda teacher of Hafisavija-
yag?riii 100*29.
Vij jain -bhpati s Prabodhach&n-
drik 115*2211; personai details
about hirn l l 5*27ff.
Vikrama, f rther of Vijjala-bhpati
115*27.
Vik;ram&ditya l l T n l .
Vimalasarasvati mentions Vararu-
obi ali&s Ktyyana as author of
Udistras 27*2; 27*nl; author
of Rupaml 44*2 ; his date 44*5;
44m ; quoted by AmritabhSrati
44*nl.
Vi'tyaka, father of Kaghuniha
103*4.
ViDayasundarn, teacher of Megha-
ratna 99*15.
Vinayavijayagai author of Haima-
laglniprakriy 79*12 ; pupil of
Klrtivijavagani 79*13 : bis date
79-13. 79*n2.
Vincent Smith, Early History o
India, 17*5 ; 17*16.
Vlrcvara, preceptor of Jaganntha
47-nl, and son of eBhkrishna
48*nl. .
Vishaml by Ngojibhatta, a com.
on Blmttojis abda-kaustubha
49-18. #
VishmnHr&s com. Saupadmama*
karanda 112*15.
Vishu-puraa 16*7.
Vi*irntavidydhara quoted by He
machandra 76*n2.
Vivakarma, author of Vykriti, &
com. on Prakriy$kaumudl46*nl.
Vi^vapraksa l l l * n 2.
Viveivara-dlkshita, see Bhnu-
dTkshita.
Vi4ve4varSbdhi 97*17.
Vitthala, com. on Srasvata, quotes
Trilochanadsa 89*2.
Vitthalchrya author of Prasda
the best com. on the Prakriy-
kaumudl 45*14, 45*n2 ; his cfate
45*16 ; disparaged by Bhattoji
45*17 ; the authors quoted by
him 45*19f ; personai details
148 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar
*about him 45*21ff; quotes Naren-
drlchrya 95*24.
Vivaraa of Idvarnanda, a com.
on Mahbhld$iyapradlpa 43*3. ,
Vivaraa o f NSrayaa, a com. on
Mahbhsbyapradlpa 43-3.
Vivaraa on Hemachandras Lig-
nudsana and on Undi stras
7t*31fE. (
Vrittistra mentioned by Itsing and
e haps same as the Kik
5*20, 35*n2.
Vy i said to have been at first a
foliower of the Aindra school
10*16 ; said to be a contemporary
of Pini 19*10 ; corarnonly re-
garded author of the Paribhshs
27*20; eomes between Pini
and Patafijali 27*21 ; mentioned
by Ktyyaua 31n6 ; author of
tneSagfaba 31*18, 3l*n9 ; men
tioned by VfttnanchSrya 53*30,
53 n2.
Vykaraadurghat;odghta by Ke-
avadeva 110 n3.
Vykhyua-prakriy 82*1.
Vykriti by Vivakarman, com. on
the Prakriykaumudl 46nl.
W
Weber on Pinis date 14*3; his
History of Indian literature 82*7.
Westorgaards Radices Lingu
aanscritae 25*n3.
Wilkin8 Sanskrit Grammar 104*18.
Writing, art of, when introduced
4*26 ; presnpposed by tho primi
tive Prtiakhyas 4*30.
JC, Y, Z
davas of Bfevagiri 104*32,105*3.
Ysjuvalkya looked upon by Kt-
yyana as a very ancient writer
27* 1.
Yjikas mentioned in tbe Nirukta
8*ttl.
Ya}urveda8ambit-bhff8liya 42*13.
Yaiue, Krisa, Saihhit anterior to
rff ini 1412*
Yakshavarm&n8 com. called Chin-
tmai on katyana abdSnu-
sana 72*3.
Yahkrti 64*n2.
Ya4nhpla writea the drama Moha-
rja-parjaya 75*11.
Yska, predecessors of, 5; hoknew
fourfold classificdtion of words
5*19; 8*25; showaPini in mak
ing 5*19, as primitive Prtikh-
yas show Yska in making 5*19;
Y'ka, mairdy a philologist 5*26;
forms link between primitive
PrtikhyaB and Pijini 5*28 ;
calls his work a complement to
grammar 5*n3 ; his Nirukta, its
date 6 ; his account of course
of development of 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 terms com-
pared with those of Pini 6*n2;
Yska comes between 800 to 700
beforeOhrist 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 of 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.
Yaodharma 58*29.
Ya6onand G4*n2.
Yavanas mentioned by Pini 15*13;
not always t i be identified with
lonian Gieeks 15*23 ; Pinis
knowledge of them less than that
of 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 of Hiuen
Tsang 19*3.