. . .

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





ka ^

Jr ~

I» • • I1'
m lm p p ļ«


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




8 1 0 -9

• F x jJ t|

JL ± i«

• •«

XIX i m








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



— Price

Rs. 2-0-0

To be kad of—
The OHentāl Books Snṇplying Agency 13 Shukrawar, POONA

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


P agb

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

10. The School of Pāņini

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

11. Pāņini’s date ....................................................13 12. The view that Pāņini cannot be placed bofore B. C. 350 esamined ........................................15 13. Known facts about Pāņini’s life................... 18 14. Charactcr of Pāņini’s work ......................... 19 15. Technical devices used by Pāņini .............. 22 10. Treatises accessory to Pāņini’s Ashtādhyāyī ... 25 17. Kātyāyana : His (late .........................................28 18. Nature of Kātyāyana’s vārtikas to Pāņini’s g ra m m a r...................................................... 29 19. Vārtikakāras before and after Kātyāyana ... 31 20. Patañjali: His date and personai history ... 32 21. The VySkaraņa-Mahābhāshya as marking the end of the first period in the history of the Pāņinīya s c h o o l...........................................34 22. Chandragomin and his work ......................... 34 23. The Kāśikā of Jayāditya and Vām ana........ 35 24. The indebtedness of the Kāśikā to Chandragomin 37 25. Jinendrabuddhi’s Ny5 sa o» the Kāśikā........ 38 20. Haradatta’s Padamafijarī on the KāśilS ... 39 27. Bhartṛihari’s Vākyapad!ya ......................... 40

iv. 28.

P agb

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

Kaiyyata’s Pradīpa as marking the end of secojjd period in the history of the Pāņiniya school ........................................................... 41 Recasts of the Ashtādhyāyī: The RāpamSlS ... 43 RSmachandra’s Prakriyā-kaunmdī, and its comm entaries........................................... 45 Bhattoji’s SiddhSnta-kaumudī and other works 46 The works of NSgeaa and of VaidyanStha Pāyaguņda....................................................... 49 Grammatical works outside the Dīkshita school 50 Abridgements and manuals ........................ 51 Later'history of treatises aecessoryto Pāņini’s g ra m m a r........................................................51 .Dhātupātha ...............................................51 Gaņapātha ... ... 53 Liñgānuśāsana ............. ......................... 53 Uņādipātha.................................................‘ ... 54 Paribhāshās ...............................................54 Resumḍ of the history of the Pgņinīyaschool... 55 The 6hāndra sch o o l ................................ 57 The dafToFTTEahdragomin ........................ 58 Nature of his work ................................... 59 Accessory treatises of the (JhSndra grammar ... 60 Later history of the ChSndra school ..................61 The Jainendra school ........................ 62 Date of the Jainendra Vyākaraņa ................ 64 Its charactcr, a n d ........................................... 65 .............................................. 66 Later history The Śākat3yana school ........................ 68 Its founder not the ancient Śākatāyana but his modern name-sake .................................... 68 Character of (ŚSkatāyana’s ŚabdSnuśāsana ... 69 Other works of this school ........................ 71 Its later h i s t o r y ............................................ 71 The Hemachandra sc h o o l ................... 73 Life of Hemachandra ................................... 73 Nature of Hemachandra’s ŚabdSnuaSsana ... 75 Treatises accessory to the Śabdānuśāsana ... 77


P agb

60. Commentaries on the fŚabdāṅuśāsana,...... 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 Šarvavarm&n, the founder of the school ................................... 82 65. Evidence for later interpolations in the Kātantra 83 SStrapātba...................................... ’ 66. Nature of Śarvavarman’s w o rk ................. 86 67. Early history of the school ....................... 87 68. Durgasimha and his vritti ....................... 87 69. Commentaries on Durgasiiiiha’s v ritti...... 88 70. Treatises accessory to the Kātantra ............. 89 71. History of the Kātantra school in Bengal ... 90 72. History of the Kātantra school in Kāsmīra ... 91 73. The SBrasvata school : Its d a t e ...... 91 74. Special ftalares of the Sārasvata ............ 93 95 75. Its traditional founder .................................. 76. Sārasvata-prakriyā of AnubhStisvar0pāchārya... 90 77. Commeutators of Sārasvata-prakriyā ............ 90 78. Commentators of the Sārasvata independently of the Prakriyā ..................................................102 79. Treatises accessory to the Sārasvata ............ 103 80. General review of the history of the Sārasvata school ............................................................ 103 81. The school of Bopadeva ....................... 104 82. Date of Bopadeva........................................ 104 83. Object of Bopadeva’s Mugdhabodha ... ... 105 84. Later history of the school ....................... 107 85. Supplements and accessory treatises of the Mugdhabodha ..................................................108 86. The Jaumara school of Kramadīśvara ... 108 87. Its special features ......................................109 88. Commentaries on the Jau m ara................. 109 89. Its present sta tu s...................................... 110 90. The Sanpadma SChool of Padmanāhhadatta 111 91. Its special features ..................................... 111 92. Commentaries on the Saupadma................ 112


P ag®

93. Treatises accessory to the Saupadma ............... 112 94. īts prestent s ta tā s ....................................................113 95. Later sectarian schools ........................ 113 96. HarinSmSnmta .................................... ... 113 97. PrabodhaprakSŚa.................................. ... 114 98. Lesser Manuals and school«books ... 115 99. Oonclusion............................................................... 116 A PPEN D IX I. Chāndra-varņa-sñtrāņi .............. 117 APPENDIX II. JogvrājVs Pidaprakaraņasañgati... 181 APPENDIX III. A Ohronological Conspectus ofthe different Schools, separatelg in a bag ... ............ GENERAL INDEX ... 121

System of Transliteration



i ī u S ri rī li e ai o au










kakha ga £ ta, * pa 5 5

gha ña * *

cha chha ja * ta * ya * ? oś * ^

jh a ña * *

tha da dha ņa * * * *

tha da dha na ṛ



pha ba bha ma *

ra la

va śa

sha sa ha ļa Visarga — ķ ; Nasalized n as in *nm — m Nasalized * as in «fhmrr — ñ

P R ṣE nee

The follotdng essav (with the nom de plūme srraTTWfl' nnETT:) w<w offered in conapetifcion for the Vishvranath Narayan Mandlik Gold Medal of the Univers<ty of Bonrbay. It was approved by the *Mge« vvith the rernark: It de serves to be printed, as it collects togetber a gtcat deal of interesting historical information. It ishow accordingly published with the kind permission ofthe University of Bombav. la preparing the essvy I bave utilīped the labonrs of most of the pīevioas 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 Dacēm College, Poona, and was in fact, at the time of ivritiog this essay, actually engage l in preparinst a DesBriptive Catalogne of the grammatical works in that Library. % As the title indicates, it is an e s ^ —a mere tentative attempt—and 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 cērtam inaccuraciesof fact and statement, for which I am deeply grateful to him. For the most part, hovever, the

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

Notember 1914»

PostScript : Little did I espect, when I wrote the above in November last, that one of the judges for the essay—Frofessor H. M. Bhadkamkar of the Wilson College, Bombay—would 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 is—though not the first—yet one of the earliest fruits of my literary activity.

Tr . » ,. . 15th July 1915.

C o lleg e, P oona,




S. K. Belvaliur.




at THE D I E f t K N r E A IST ṇiC

S V S T B M S O P S a N S K R IT G R A M M H R
1. drammatlcal speculatloos In Indla: Their extent aad valne.— It wou!d be hardly an exaggeration to say that in no other country has the Science of grammar beēn studied with such a zeal and carried to such a perfection as it has been in India. Eveñ a bare catalogue of the names of grammarians ancient and modern and of such of their works as are stili preserved to us can amply bear out the truth of this assertion. On the lowest calulation there are yet current in various parts of India nearly a dozen different schools of Sanskrit grammar, at least three hundred writers in the field including those that are known to us only from quotations, and more than a thousand separate treatises original as well as explanatory. And it is not raerely the quantity^-for that need not be a source of unalloyed pride to any people—but the quality of the work produced that has won for it a recognition and an honorable mention even at the hands of the rigorously scieņtific philologists of our own day, who are not ashamed to own their obligations to works and authors of over twenty-five hundred yearš 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 Patañjali’s explanation (MahSbhāshya: Kielhorn, Vol. i, p. 3) of w tb y or his explanation (Ibid. p. 4 ; Rigveda viii. 69.12) of tur ftpsv: by as being too subtle for the Vedic
1 [ Sk. Gr. ]

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar


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

[ - § 3

Early grcnñmatical speculations


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


Systems o f Sam krit Grammar


çaroe in raainly by way of illustration, or because no other equally cogent explanation of the Sarñhitā 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 scatterçd hymns of the Vedas came to be collected into familybooks and elaborate rules were framed for the regulation of the parishads or charaņas.* To help students in their task there also came into being about the same time various manuals on phonetics,® which dealt with letters, accents, quantity, pronunciation, and euphonic rules. In course of time the retentive faculty came to be cultivated to an extent which is without any parallel in the history of the world. A further advance was made by the constitution of the Padapātha, commonly ascribed to Śākalya, 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 invented—or introduced—in Ancient India. It was certainly much earlier than what Max Mtiller onçe believed it to be.3 What* ever that period might be, it must have been prior to the production of the Pratiśfikhya literature; and by this we
1 8ee Maz MSUer'a H l|tory of Anoient Indiau literature, Snd edition pp. 128, 187, &c. Op. Taittirlya Āraņyaka, vii. 1. Hietory of Anoient Indian Literature. p. 520. Coṛopare oo the eubject Biibleṛ’e ṇontribution to the Grnndriei der IndoArnehen Philologie, eapeciellṛ page 18.


[- §5

Pudectssors o f Vāska


raean not the Prātiśākhyas in their present form—which are post-Pāņinīya and pre-suppose much of his termiaology—but in some earlier form» and noder whatewer other names they may have been then known.’ The contributions whichtthese prototypes of our present Prltiśfkhyas made to the science of grammar can now, in the absence of aņy really representative works of that class, be merely guessed at. If the^nature and contents of our existing Prātiśākhya literatūra 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 Yāska ; 2. framed and carefully defined some of the primitive9 safijñās 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 Yāska in the making» as Yāska hiraself, to some extent, shows us Pāņini 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 Yāska3, who, althoUgh a philologist ^and not a grammarian as such, can for our purpose be regarded as forming the link between the primitive Frātiśākhya type of spe1 Goldstficker, P āņini: his plaee Burnell would cail ṭheae the iṇ Sanakriṭ literatūra, pp. 183 terme of the Ainḍra Sehool of and ff. ; fieprint of the eame Grammariaas. hy Psṇiai Office, pp. .141 andif. 3 l’ftaka calja hie o«a vork a 2 Primitive: thote nameiy that oomphmieat to g r a m m a r : PSņini pṛeauppoees and oaee RawtW?T RinWļ ; i withouṭ ezplaiaiug them, Dr.


Sys(ems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 5- 3

culation on the one hand, and the later Pāņiniya mode of thought on the other. 6. Yitka’s Nirakta: its date.— In a memorable passage Yāska himself roughly indicates the course of the development of Vedic studies before his time, and, reflecting the achievements made upto his days in the Sciences of grammar and philology, contributes his own quota to the same. The passage has been variously interpreted, but the explanation given below may be found perhaps as acceptable as any other.1 It mentions three distinct periods of intēllectual development corresponding rough* ly to sections 2-5 above. Un£ortunately 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 Pāņini, between whom and this great vrriter at least a century, if not raore, must be supposed to have elapsed in order to account properly for ali the advances3 in the matter
1 m w e w w » r ID PIT


1 ļ M a n tra a

( These are the original “ Seers of

ļ Tbeae correspond to tbe authora of
“i* fglff'lm * * « * * * * -( . a*. « J * j '

tbe BrSbmaņio «peoulatiooa; poesibIr alaoto the oompilera of tha

Th«#eare the auṁore of tbe Padapātha, theNighaņṭu,and otherallied worka, inclnding powibly theprototypea of our modern PrStiś3kbyaa.

2 Thpa, for— Cautai Frequentativ. Deaiderative

Ysaka uaea— anfttf

wbile Pffņini usea— ftrcmr W tm

a in a

f t ftarai

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

[- §6

Vdska's Nirukta ; Its Bote


and urording of the rules Of grammar that are to be met vrith in the Ashtādhyāyī. We have dealt with the question of Pāņini’s date in auother part of this essay, and if that reśult be accepted, Yāska must be placed about 800 to 700 before Christ. There are, however, a few facts which seem to mili* tate against the view that Yāska flourished before Pāņini. The Sūtras of Pāņini 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 Pāņini appar* ently know Yāska’s explanation of ( Rigveda x. 85.20) by tphv Vfsft. Pāņini must, therefore, have preceded Yāska; else how can we account for such omissious in a grammarian of the calibre of Pāņini ? 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 Kātyāyana1 gives (ļj/ftetuoi ’UTUVīpsv: as a vārtika to sātra iv.r. 48. Kātyāyna must, therefore, have come after Yāska whose work he here presumably utilises. On the contrary, the first omission is not rectified even by Kātyāyana who gives two vārtikas (no. 7 and 8 to vi. 1.89) to explain forms like UT«f and ecuudj but not emsh This would necessitate the supposition that Yāska came after Kātyāyana. A mode of argumentation which leads to such contradictory couclusions is no safe foundation for
there ia a great distance bet- 1 In Kielhorn’e edition vol. ii. p. ween Ysaka’e 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 eiplanaPāņini’s claaeification of them tion of auvrṛpft as sṛrnrṛV into <mn4 when joined to tṛisft and his non-acquaintanoe verbe, «ifh if the root develope with vSrtika 1 to Sntra iv. 1. into a nonn, and 49 may be addnced to prove Many mora similar illustrathe point at issue. tions could be fonnd. *


Śystents o f Šanskrit Grammār

§6- ]

tm j chronological edifice, especially when the evidence for Yāska's priority to Pāņini is so overwhelming.
9. Nature of YMcu’s urork.— In form Yāska’s work is a running comñlentrary upon a list of words in five adhyāyas, known as the Nighaņtu. The words are ali taken from the Veda; the first three adhyāyas 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. Yāska takes these words one by one (in the case of the first three adhyāyas 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 šocial and historical discussions in his attempts to trace the later history of these words, always giving references to any conflicting views th at may have been held on the subject. Certairr general reflectfons as to the nature and utility of the study of the Vedas, the cosmological functions of the Vedic Gods, and so forth also find their proper place in the work.

That grammatical speculations had sufficiently advanced in the days of Yāska is evidenced even by the list of schools and individual teachers quoted or referred to in the Nirukta,1 none of whose works have been preserved to us. Yāska already knew, what it required an Aristotle to discover subsequently, viz : the fourfold classification of words, as also the distinction between personai terrainations and tense affixes on the one hand, and the primary and secondary nominal affixes on the other. Nay, he definitely formulates the theory that every noun is deriv1 These are: auīnmr:, amrnṁr:, ttw ,, unmm:, «lifti:, s^ofeTv:, «tm»:, Tforrercr:, «rr$irft, ugt,vr ftprr:, TnmkOr:, ṣmnrnDr:, çrruryftr:, 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 PSņini is based, and whičh is, in fact, the postulate o f ! modern Philoiogy.1 8. YSska’s succe«or».—Many valuable works on gram­ mar subsequent to Y3 ska‘s Nirukta but anterior to PSņini’s Ashtādhyāyī have been irrevocably lost to us ; for, it cannot be maintained with cogency that the extremely artificial and algebraic style of the Ashtādhyāyi could have been completely evolved by PSņini himself in the absence of similar tentative works preceding his. We have got for this the evidence of PSņini’s own sntras, which use many technical words and formulas without having previously explained them9—an omission which, as indicated by PSņini 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 MahābhSshya, since we find many quotations from them in later writers. The chief founders of grammatical schools prior to PSņini are, Apiśali and Kāśakntsna (compare PSņini vi. 1. 92 ). A rule of Āpiśali3 is given by the KSśikS on vii. 3. 95,
1 Compare Maz Miiller’s History of Anoient Sk. Literatūra, pp. 161-168. 2 Such as renr, JT O H T , fžfļfhrrt fļfhrr, ^ngpff, 3I«nfhrnr» &c., occurring respectively in i. 1. 69, ii. 3. 46, ii. 3. 2, ii. 3. 18, ii. 3. 13, ii. 3. 28, ii. 3. 50, ii. 3. 36, ii. 1. 3, ii. i. 22, ii. i . 5, 3 ii. 2. 23, iii. 1. 93, iv. 1, 76,
a [S k .G r .]

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


Sjtstems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§8 - ]

wbile elsetrhere it gives us the information that the grammar of Kāśakritsna consisted of sntras throvrn into three Adhyāyas.' 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. Pāņini nowhere mentions this name except under the general appelation of ' the easterners An oft-quoted passage from the fourth tarañga of the Kathāsaritsāgara informs us that the school which Pāņini supplanted was known as the Aindra school, and numbered among its adherents Kātyāyana alias Vararuchi, Vyādi, and Indradatta. Hiuen Tsang the Chinese pilgrim, and Tārānātha the Tibetian historian, both relate a similar story, the latter adding that the Chāndra vyākaraņa agrees with Pāņini, and the Kālāpa vyākaraņa vith the Aindra. Tārānātha also States that God Kārttikeya revealed the Aindra vyākaraņa to Sapta(not Sarva-)varman (compare section 64, below). Further corroborative evidence is furnished by a passage4 froai the Taittiriya-samhitā (viu-Jṛr-ļ.), which speaks of Indra as the first of grammariajik-3‘ Ifo ali this Dr. Burnell
1 Compare the KStiika on v. 1. 58, tho subject of l and iv. 2.65 : fañr 2 *flram envtf t s rn i Another bit i of Information about sirpt- 3 Compare, g a ņ a ^ i orrtl^HHlfteriļṭ, whlch I owe to Profes vrçft srraram : i aor Pathak, ia that he ohanged qjṛ Nfrom tbe root am; to be’ to ar. ComBepadeva’a Mugdhabodha. pare m m m flhrit. ṁ the 4 vrg š i āt%arr MahsbhEabja «n i. 3. 22. y*ṛp iW ii% ai 4 ta ud w iif (tfii » Jinendrabuddhi and............................. .......... i īnff)riṛl msviftsmrv (1 .4 .3 8 ) aupply aarffiṭiTg: aa «vraitht t <

[ §- 9

The so-calkd A in ā ra treatises


further adds that the Tolkappiyara, one of the oldest Tarail grammars, represents itself to be full of the Aindra system, and was read in the Pāņdy» King’s dssembly and there met with approval. This Tolkappiyam is closely related to Kātantra, to Kachchāyana’s Pāli grammar, and to the Prātiśākhyas, ali of which are to be regarded as treatises belonging to the Aindra school of grammarians. The conclusion1 which D r.Burnell reaches is that the ‘ Aindra was the oldest school of Sanskrit grammar, and that Aindra treatises were actually known to and quoted by PSņini and others, and that Aindra treatises stili exist in the Prātiśākhyas, in the Kātantra, and in similar works, though they have been partly recast or corrected.’ And again, ‘ the Aindra treatises belong to a system older than Pāņini'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 Pāņini islļuite evident; and on this ground it is not unlikely that they represent a school of grammarians prior to Pāņini’s. But since, besides the Aindra, we have at least two other schools also older than Pāņini, it will not do to put down every one o£ these sañjfiās as belonging to the Aindra school, seeing that we have no information regarding the sañjñās of the other two. In the present state of our knowledge, the fact that the Aindra school is nowhere quoted by name either in Pāņini or Mahābhāshya or Kāśikā should point to the conclusion—also endorsed by Keilhorn—that the Aindra school is postPfiņinīya in date, though pre-Pāņinīya in substance. Po3sibly it may be no other than the Kātantra school
1 Compare bis Eauy on the Aindra eohool oipunmMiuM» jw*eim.


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar


which belongs to the early centuries of the Christian era. Any further, details regarding the grammatical efforts earlier than PSņini it is not possible to give. Ali that we can do is, £ollowing Yāska and on the basis of references occurring in Pāņini, Kātyāyana, Patañjali, and the earlier Prātiśākhyas and Brāhmaņas, 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 Pāņini—are given.1

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

[ - § ii

P Sņint: Hi& Date

i% ,

ing specimen o£ that type of literary activity, which found expression in the aphoristic style.' 11. PiņinP* date— The question about the age of this greatest of grammarians is by no means yet settled, or even on the way of being settled. The late Dr. Peterson was inclined to identify him with his namesake, Pāņini the poet, quoted in Vallabhadeva’s Subhāshitāvali and elsewhere, and to place him 'a t a date much later than that ordinarily accepted,’ that is, about the beginning of the Christian era.9 The identification of Pāņini the grammarian with Pāņini the poet was also accepted by Pischel, who however assigned to him the date cir. 500 before Christ. The question * how far Pāņini 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 ākhyāyikā called Vāsavadattā occurring in the Mahābhāshya (vol. ii, p. 284) are to be taken as chronologically in touch with the celebrated romance of Subandhu, a writer of the seventh century. This will leave not even a century between Patañjali and Bhartņhari the author of the Vākyapadīya. How in that case we are to account for the vicissitudes in the text of the Mahābhāshya as recorded in the latter work» and in the Rājatarañgiņī8 one is at a loss to say. Since the recent discovery of Bhāsa’s Svapna-Vāsavadattam, which probably was based upon an earlier epic or ākhyānaka,
1 That the 8ñtra-form was not new 3 Introduetion to the Subhffebitffin Panini’s days is evident vali, p. 58. from the sfitra v. 1.58 : 4 Towarde the end of KSṇḍa 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.


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 11 - ]

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

[ - § 12 .

Pftņini: H is Daie


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 Pāņini. Perhaps 700 to 600 B. C. would be as near an approximation to Pāņini’s 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 Pāņini in iv. 1.49

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


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 12 - j

known to have formed part of the army of Danus in the battle of Plataeae (B. C. 479), India’s knowledge of the Greeks can go back to the middle of ’the fifth century before ChrisĻ The fact is—and scholars are just begining to recognise it—that we have been too hasty in con demning the Pauranic accounts of the frontier tribes and races (e. g. those in the Vishņupurāņa or in the MahābhSrata, Bhīshmaparvan, 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 Mediterranean—and this long before B. C. 400. So much so that when other independent proofs vouch for the antiquity of an author (in the case of Pāņini 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 Pāņini’s reference must certainly belong to the earlier period. Compared with Kātyāyana’s knowledge about the Yavanas that of Pāņini is very slight. Pāņini did not know that the Yavanas had a script of their own ( comp. Katyāyana’s vārtika 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 Kātyāyana’s vārtika gnrent * • «• ItdMd'(jjrn»<ra«n toiv. 1.175—supposing of course that a n d u ro form a genuine part of the *w?UfiGnui. Such slight acquaintance with the Yavanas, therefore, as Pāņini betrays caltoot have belonged to a time subsequent to Alexander’s invasion.




1 2

P ā ņ in i: H is Date

But there is also independent evidence to prove tbat PSņini lived before Alexander's invasion. The internai evidence which compels us to prf 9uppose at least a couple of hundred years between Fatañjaf and Kātyāyana, and KātySyana and Pāņini—ān evidence which even Vincent Smith finds himself compelled to accept(Early Hist. 3ṛd. 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. Vishyanāth Kāshināth Rājavāde in the ‘Kesarī’ for 30th August 1910) is Pāņini's mention of the town Sangala (Gr. Sāngala, Sk. Sāñkala) in the sūtra *T|;<!4lfawTW (iv. 2. 75). Pāņini derives the name of the town from the proper name Sañkala. Sāñkala is a city completed by (Prince?) Sañkala. This city Alexander razed to the ground as a punishment for the stout resistance of its defenders (Vincent Smith, loc. cit., page 75), and Pāņini could not have thereafter spoken of it in the manner in which he does. Pāņini, therefore, must have lived before Alexander’s invasion. Another independent evidence is furnished by the sātra vvHorsfl (v. 3.117). Here the Parsus or the Persians (and the Asuras or the Assyrians) are mentioned as an or an organization of mercenary fighters, similar to the Greeks of the fourth century B.C., or the Germans of the seventeenth century. The Persians were blotted out as a political power in B. C. 329, and the Assyrians in B. C. 538. Pāņini's references to these people belong, therefore, probably to a time anterior to these datēs. Lastly, reverting once more to Kātyāyana’s vārtika to iv. 1.175, if the word forms a genuine part of the it will be necessary to suppose tīrāt Pāņini did not know that the Sakas or Skythians had a co«ntry or a kingdom of their own. Now the first King of the 3 [ Sk. Gt. J


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ ie - ]

Skythians was Deioces whose date is cir. 70 9 B.G., and Pāņini must have lived before B. C. 700 or at least not long after that date. It is of course conceded that none of these arguments are decisive taken singly. Alternative suppositions could be made to explain away some of these facts. Thus Pāņini 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 sātra, since Patañjali in his gloss on Kāty5yana’s vārtika does not mention the Śakas or the Yavanas, the two words may not possibly form a geuuine part of Kātyāyana’s addition, and coñsequently no cogent argurnent could be based on that circumstance,—waving the alternative possibility of Pāņini havinģ at times made mistakes. Fināli y, it is ņot altogether impossible that the sūtras on which our arguments for Pāņini’s,|,ntiquity are based, were taken over by Pāņini bodily from some of his predecessors, just as, contrariwise, the sūtras from which his modernity is inferred (especially the word tran in sūtra iv. i . ī 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 Pāņini’s Ashtādhyāyī that is inconsistent with his having flourished in the seventh century.B. C.. and this negative conclusion is ali that I am content to reach for the present, leaving the burden of proof with those who wish to maintain the contrary. 13. Known facts about PSņini’s IM e.— As differing from himself Pāņini mentions (v. 3 . 80, vi. 2. 74 , etc.) a school of Eastern grammarians, and in later literature be is also known by the name Śālāturlj^a1 which is probably derived
l &c, from • r a r m r n r tç f t 2.

[ —| 14

Knotm Pacts about Pñņini's Life


from his native place. Cunningham hasidentified Śālātura with the present Lahaur in the Yusufzai valley. In the days of Hiuen Tsang the valley was known as Udyāna and Śālātura was a prosperous town. To-day it is an obscure deserted village in the Nortb-westein Frontier Pro­ vince, near Attock. In his Mahābhāshya’ Patañjali gives ,another bit of biographical informaticn about Pāņini whom he calles Dākshī then was Pāņini’s mother. The KathāsaritsSgara (tarañga 4) makes Pāņini a contemporary of Kātyāyana and Vyādi and Indradatta, along with whom he studied at the house of T'TTW DT Not succeeding in his studies Pāņini practised penance and received from God Śiva the fourteen p ra tliā h ā ra sūtras. The story about his death from a tiger* as recorded in Pañchatantra, if based on fact, may or may not refer to our Pāņini. And this is about ali that we know of Pāņini's personality.
H. characU r of Plņlnl’s work — Pāņini’s work consists of nearly fdur thousand sūtras thrown into eight adhyāyas of four pādas each : hence its name Ashtādhyāyī. The text of the sūtras has come down to us almost intact. A doubt exists as to the genuineness of only five^ of these sūtras, and that is hēčause they are given in the Mahābhāshya as vārtikas to the sūtras just preceding them. When we say that the text has been preserved intact, it is not meant that it is exactly as we find it in any of our current editions. The late Dr. Kielhorn drew attention4 to the
1 2 frsftļVTV «Tīfa*: I tendency to regnrd as ṣūtra Kielhorn’a ed. vol. i. p. 75. what is given as vīīrtika, and flļ^f *rren?i; viee vērsa, has created floine fifrrnṭtrrfurvrt i Tantra ii, stanza confusion in the exact ennmara33, tion of the afitras. The whqle Namely, two between iv. 3,131 matter needs to be critically and 132 and v. t .36, vi. 1.62, atudied. Compare Gcldstflcker and vi. 1.100,—the last tbree page 29 (Reprint, p. 21), note being given in the Mahubbff28. shya ae vffrtikas to the sūtras 4 Indian Anliquary, volnmr xvi, immediately preoedi»g. The page 179,



Systems 0 / Sanskrit Grammar

§ 14 - ]

fact that the text of the sātras 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 vārtikas and the Mabābhāshya the exact words as they were used by Pāņini himself. Changes have been suggested in raore than one place by more than one writer, but they were not actually made until after the times of Chandragomin, the Kāśikākāras, and subsequent writers. Pāņini 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 language—and this is what vyākaraņa literally means—the first element we reach is a sentence, which again consists of a verb in the various tenses and moods, and a number of substantives in case-relations to each other. [The indeclinables we do not count for the p re sen t; they are put in towards the end of 1 .4 .] Now the formsof verbs that we meet in sentences seem to be made up of an original root-stem and a number of gratyayas or endings, and it is these endings that give the verbs their several raodal and temporal significances. These endings, we further notice, group themselves into two sets, and some roots take invariably only one of them, others both, while a number of others change from one to the other under certain circumstances. At the outset then, and to get rid of extra compfexity, we dispose of these so-called Atmane-pada and Parasmai-pada prakrivās ( *• 3 )• Turningparl passu to the other element of the sen­ tence, having defined a case-relation (i. 4), we notice that there are often in a sentence sustantives without any case termination at ali, We explain these as the members of a whole vhich we technically call a samSsa or a compound. The formation and the vārieties of these must

[ — f 14

Programmē of the Askt3dhy3yī


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


Śļ/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 caņons of interpretation (i. 1 and 2), and he always takes care to introduce such definitions whereever they are required. Some minor topics usually found included in systematic treatises on grammar, such as the Svara-prakarana (vi. 2) or the Strī-pratyayas, Pāņini has attempted to put into the places wīiere they would raost fit in, the only prominent exceptioh to the above rule being the Sandhi-prakaraņa, 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 pratyāhāras 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 Pāņini has succeeded remarkably well in welding the whoIe incongruous mass of grammatical matter into a regular and a consistent whole.’ 15. Technlcal devlces used by PSņlnl.— The difficulty in understanding Pāņini comes from the very circumstance which Pāņini himself perhaps considered as his real advance over ali his predecessors, namely his attempt to economise expression where conceivably he could do so
1 1 do not wish to conceal the fact that the above topical acheme for the whole of the AsMādhyūyī will be found wanting, if tried in details. It would eeem as if Pāņini wae working alternately upon tbe two main aspects of his problem. tbe nouna and tbe verbs ; and the present arrangement of tbe sñtras in the ABhṭ5dhyāyI is tbe reM ilt of attempting to dovetau the two into a coherent whole, involving in the process rnany an addition and omission and transposition. I | may even he that some sections of the sutras are post-PāņinĶa interpolations, just as, ņon* trariwise, other sections ofthe sñtras Pāņini raay bave bodiiy taken over from spm© earlier

£ - § 15

Technkal Devices used by Paņini


without being raisunderstood. Why Pāņini should have elected to strain ali his nerves to bring about a result which a student -of grammar is often likely to regard AS the curse o£ his lot is raore than vrhat \ve c&n say. His object may have been to give his students aids to memory, or the sūtra-style may have ariseṭ/, as suggested by Goldstucker, in the scarcity of the raaterial for writing. In any case we have reasons to assurne that the sūtras 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 Pāņini attempto secure terseness and brevity of expression. The most amongst the devices used was of course that o£ the pratyāhāras or elliptical statements, and o£ the anubandhas or signifiraņt eņdiņgs. The first was effiected by means of the fourteen Śiva-sūtras, which, according to tradition, were revealed to him by God Siva himself by sounding his tabor. As to the second, although the anubandhas used by Pāņini are peculiar to himself, the device does not appear to have been his invention. The practice already existed, and Pāņini only utilised it to its utraost limits.,

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

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

ṭ l§ - ]

class, but rather give merely a few leading types. Pāņini in his sūtras gives only the first word o£ a gaņa 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 Gaņapātha existed in Pāņini's day, stili the bulk of our present Gaņapātha 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, šP?» sg, &c. Some of these raay have been known to Pāņini 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 sūtras Pāņini always scrupulously omitted ali such words as may be conveniently supplied from sense or from preceding sūtras. The technical name for this process is anuvritti, and to secure it he has made some of his sūtras adhikāra-sūtras,3 that is to say, sūtras which have to be repeated, wholly or in part, each time any of the sūtras dominated by it are to be interpreted. Lastly, in portions of the Ashtadhyāyi he has so arranged the sūtras that vrhere two sūtras appear equally applicable, that vrhich comes earlier in the order of the Ashtādhyāyi must obtain precedence over the one vrhich comes later.3 fit
1 MahSbhāshyu 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 Pāņini sbows that a particular value to some mute letter addsUtra is an adhikāra sñtra by ed to the sfitra , c. p. ṣr (»2) i. the word snrç followed by a is supposed to be added to word in the ahlative case v. 1.30 to sbow the extent of occurñng in a subsequent aūtra the adhiksra ; and 4. to which the adhikār* is to I continue ; as in i. 4. 56; 2. 3 Pāņini viii. 2.1—

* [ - ṭ 16

fre a tis e ļ acces$ory to P Š ņ in i


There is yet one raore device serving the stṭme end which remains to be mentioned and of which so much was made in later grammatical speculations: namely, the use of the paribhāshās or canons of interpretation. Some of them are enunciated by Pāņini 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 Pāņini’s sātras imply the use of what particular paribhāshās.1 |6< Troattees accessory to PSņlnl's Ashṭldhyiyī.— In addition to the Ashtādhyāyl, Pāņini put together a Dhātupātha or listof roots, a Gaņapātha or list of words which behave alike grammatically, and Uņādi-sūtras in some form or other. Regarding the first, Pāņini mentions in the sātras themselves ali the ten classes and even some of their sub-divisions just as they occur in the Dhātupātha.2 The anubandhas of the Dhātupātha, further, have the same significance3 as those of the Ashtādhyāyī. These facts tend to establish Pāņini's authorship of the Dhātupātha. We have already spoken (p. 23 above) about the Gaņa­ pātha, which also in the main belongs to Pāņini. The question as to the authorship of the Uņādi-sūtras cannot be so easily settled. They are commonly supposed to be the work of Sākatāyana on the basis of statements found in the Nirukta1 and the Mahābhāshya/ according to which ŚSkatāyana agreed with the in deriving « * "
For the distinction between the vii, l. 59 ; vir. 2. 45 \ &c. and tbe 3 Wegtergaard’s Kadices Linguee and the whole question of Sanscrit®, pp. 342, 343. Pāņini’s use of paribhāshās 4 Nirukta i. 4. 1 s „ see Uoldstūcker, pp. 106-118 grnftffr ṣtrr a rn f t ' (Reprint, pp. 81-90). 6 Kielbom, vol. ii. p. 131 *amr 2 Compare i. 3.1 ; ii. 4. 72 and urggun* MWM«) SUBgVT 76 j iii. 1. 25, 66, 69, 73, 77, * irta* l # , 79,81; ui. 3.104; vi. 1.15 ṭ 4 tS k .G r.] 1


ŚļlstetHs o f Sanskrit Gramttidr

i 16 - ]

ali nouns from roots. Since, however, no #ork of Śākatāyana has come down to us, and since the Śabdānuśāsana vrhich novr passes under his name is a comparatively late production (see belovr, § 52), vre cannot say vrhether this ancient ŚSkatāyana left behind him any vrork in justification of the vievrs which he doubtless held. On the other hand the Uņādi-sūtras exhibit unmistakable mārks of Pāņini’s system. They use sañjñās such as =***, grarnr, wthh «i , and ansmr in the same sense in vrhich Pāņini uses them. The anubajidhas of the Uņādis are also similar to Pāņini’s. This raises a strong presumption that the Uņādi-sūtras are the work of Pāņini himself ; and it is further corroborated by the fact that K5tyāyana in more than one place takes objection to the technical application of a rule in the Ashtādhyāyī urging that it does not hold good in the case of particular Uņādisūtras—an objection which could not have been urged unless Kātyāyana regarded Pāņini to be the author of the U ņādis; for, Pāņini vras not to be expected to frame rules that vrould hold good in other people's vrorks.1 There is no reason why vre should not accept this conclusion. We cannot, however, assign ali the Uņādi-sūtras to Pāņini’s authorship, seeing that in some places their teaching runs counter to the Ashtādhyāyī.2 The probable vievr, as suggested by Goldstricker,3 is that the Uņādi list vras first dravrn up by Pāņini, but that it vras aftervrards modified or corrected by Kātyāyana. The extent of the changes introduced by the author of the Vārti 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, Uņadi-satra iv. 226 goea has the remark Torrfl’rt vfiṭagainst Paṇini vi. 2.139. Wr*Vi or words to this 3 Psņini, his place &c., pp. 170 effect. Patañjali’e defenoe of (Beprint, 130) a n d ^ l (BePBṇini is throughout groundprint, 139).

[ - § 16

Treatises accessorļi to Pāņini


have been so gfeat as to credit hinr, in popular tradition, with their sole authorship. _Thus Vimalasarasvati,1 a writer not later than the fourteeņth century A. D., and Durgasimha* who belongs to the early centuries of the Christian era, both assign the authorship o£ the Uņādisūtras to Vararuchi alias K3 tyāyana* The poet Māgha, however, seems to look upon the Uņādis as belonging to Pāņini,3 though his words are not ṛļaite explioit. The other works appended to Pāņini’s system probably do not come from him. The Phit-sātras are, by unanimous testimony, the work of Śāntanavāchārya, a writer much later than Pāņini.4 The Śikshā bears on the face of it the stamp of modernness, notvvithstanding the factth at a verse from it has found its way into the.Mahābhāshya; 5 and the same is true of the Liñgānuśāsana. Regarding the Paribhāshās, in addition to those given by Pāņini in his Ashtādhyāyī there raay have been others current in Pāņini’s time and tacitly employed by him ; but no ancient collection of them has come^down to us. The Paribhāshās are usually assigned to the authorship of Vyādi who comes between Pāņini and Patañjali.
1 In the 4ļkiwrrfi', the India Office 4 Compare vpfr|$hur on Mg. of wkioh is dated 1381 ii. 21, where he remarka— A. D., we find : TonffegģtffoņpmSt 3TPJ-

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

«nrer vhnm i
M ab5 b h E sh y a ,

2 He begins hia com. on the ç iṛ •eotion of the Kstantra with the verse : 9 8 t: fīftvn ar çsti *8» i i i u m f r r iṭ ç v r « The kņts in this school also inolnde the UṇSdis, as will be seen later.

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

3 ŚiśupSlavadha xix. 75, and Maloommentary upon

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

the same.


System 0/ Sanskrit Grammar

§ i| - ]

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

1 Goldstilcker proves this by sbow • ing that 1. grammatical forms ourrent in Pāņini's time are obsolute in that of Kātyāyana. 2. 8o also the: meanings of words. 8. Words aoqujUre in Kfftyāyana’s time significances which they had not in Pāņini’s. 4.Literatureknown toK«tyā* yana was unknown to Plņini. 5* Writers contemporary with

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

[ - § 18

Kñtydyana: Mis Work

about two to th ile eenturies would not by any me&na be too great an intfefval that we can suppose to have elapsed between them, īn 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 Kātyāyana with the Nandas raentioned in KathSsarits3gara has any basis in fact. 18 Netur# of KSty«yao«*B work.—KātySyana's work, the virtikas, are meant to correct, modify, or supplement the rules of Pāņini wherever they were or had become partially or totally inapplicable. There are two works> of his which aim at this object. The earlier* is the Vājasaneyi Pritiśākhya, a work dealing with the grammar and orthography of the Vājasaneyi-Sarhhitā. Being limited by the nature of his subject to Vedic forms of language only, Kātyāyana has herein given his criticisms on such of the sūtras of Pānini as fell within his province. Taking up the suggestion which dawned upon him probably in the course of his Prātiiākhya, Kātyāyana next subjected Pāņini’s Ashtādhyāyī to a searching criticism. Sinoe here his object was not to explain Pāņini but find faults in his grammar, he has left unnoticed many sūtras that to him appeared valid. Of the nearly 4,000 sūtras Kātyāyana
1 Kstyāyana is credited with the authorahip of a third work in efitra stjle, the Kātyāyana Śrauta sūtras (published in the Chaukhamba Sanskrit series), bnt it has nothing to do witb grammar. It might have given Kātyāyana practice in writing eūtrat, but that is ali. 2 That the Vljasaneyi-Prātitś5khya is posterior to and based upon ^Pfṇini Is olear from the faot i, that manjr of the sūtras there given are indentic&l with those of Pāņini. ii. The pratyāhārae and anubandhas are in most oasss those of Pāņini. iii. Where there are ohanges they are improvements upon Pāņini, snoh improvements as Kātyāyana later emhodied ^ṇrith occaeion&l ohanges for tbe better in his virtikas. See Goldstfioker, Pgṇini, pp. 199 (Reprint, pp, IftS) and the following.


Systems o f Sanskrit


§ 18 - ]

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

arç&r Bhr
j- i -*

i-m w r s īnf^nmr<oitypn^ṭsī: 1-'»'4
4 5 6 7 Vnrtika 1 to sūtra iii. 1. 84 ; Vārtika 1 to sStra v. 2. 47 ; Vitrtika 1 to sfltra vi. 4. 14; Vffrtika 2 to aūtra iii. 4. 79 ; —to give but one instance of each, .

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

8 Vlrtika 1 to «Otra ii. 1. 83 ;

[ - § 19

Mariier anč LaUr VSrtikakiras

WSSf*r for Ķ Ķ > fntṇrrçtV for amç, ṛnPļft and m rpft for and g ^ . This iEact, together with the statement in the Kathāsaritsāgara1 to the effect that he gvas a follower of the Aindra school, raakes it probable that he belonged to a school, of grammar different from Pāņini's. Patafijali distinctly calls him a ‘ Southerner’.2
19. VSrtlkakiras before and after Kity§yana As observed before (p. 28), Kātyāyana had several predecessors from whose works he may have taken many suggestions. In his Prātiśākhya he refers to Śākatāyana3 and Śākalya,4 names alreadyquoted by P āņ in i; while in the vārtikas he refers by name to Vājapyāyana,c Vyādig and Paushkarasādi,7and designates a number of others under the general appelation of %T%?r, and so forth.8 Some of these latter must have been scholars who, like Kātyāyana himself, subjected the wording of the sūtras of Pāņini to a critical examination. Vyādi we know, was the author o£ an extensive work called Sañgraha, referred to in the Mahābhāshya® which is in fact based upon it.

Kātyāyana 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 vārtikas(over 250) that are quoted in the Mahābāshya. Some o£ these belong to Patafijali him­ self, others probably to Kātyāyana, while stili others, to either the predecessors or successors of Kātyāyana.‘1 That

3 4 5 6 7 8

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

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


Šļtstems o f Š m skrit Grammar

§ 10-3

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

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

[ — i so

Pataftjdii's MabñbhUsh)w


derived from his native place andthe ņarae of his mother, kut it has been shown by Rfjendralāl Mitra1 and Dr. Kielhornsthat they are distmct authors, and as such they are quoted by 30 early a vrriter as Vātsyāyana the author of th e Kāma-sātra/' The best account of Patañjali’s time, if not of his person, is to be found in the Mahābhāshya itself; and a detailed esposition of the religious, historical, geographical, social, and liter*ry data |s resulting from the contents of that work is to be found in the Indischo Studien, xiii. pp. 293-502. We have stated that Patañjali was not the first to deal with Kātyāyana in the same way in which the latter dealt \vith Pāņini. Patañjali was perhaps the most successful if noj also the last of the number. Besides giving his ishtis* (desiderata) on Pāņini’s sātras, wherever Kātyāyana had omitted io give vārtikas, his chief aim was to vindicate Pāņini against the often unmerited attacks of Kātyāyana ; and in this he has achieved a remarkable success, although in some places he overdoes his defence and becomes decidedly unfair to Kātyāyana. The style of his work is unparalleled in the whole range of Sans­ krit Literature, only the Śārīra-bhāshya of Śañkara being worthy of a mention by its side. Regarding the text of the Mahābhāshya the traditions recorded in the Rājataraūgiņī1 and in the Vākyapadīya» state that it had become so hopelessly corrupt inthe time of kiņg Abhimanyu of Kāśmīr that only one authentic Ms. of it existed throughout India, from which ali subsequent copies of it have been derived. The work, like
1 Journal of the Asistie Sooiety of vided into four olagMē, while Bengal, vol. Liii. "p. 289. ḍivides them into 2 Indian Amtiquary xiv, p . 40. eigbt. 3 See Ksma-afltra, p. 67 (Kffvya- 4 Vide note 5 on p. 13*bov-e. m tft editlon).—Aocor81ng to 5 Effṇḍa ii,8tanaas 4«4-»0. tflṇ rarcpr the di-

5 [Sk.G r.]


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ so - ]

Pāņini’s Ashtādhyāyī, is divided into eight adhyāyas of four pādas each, each pāda being further subdivided into from one to nine āhnikas. The Mahābhāshya does not notice ali the sūtras of Pāņini, but only such as were noticed by Kātyāyana, as also such others as Patafijali himself considered incomplete and capable of improvement. Whethcr the remaining \vere likewise commented upon by Patañjali or not is more than vvliat we can say.’
21. Patañjall’s Mahābhāshya as merkl ng the end of the first

Kātyāyana, and Patafijali are traditionally known as the “three sages,” muni-trayam, who gavo the la\v to the Science of grammar. Each took for his study the whole field of the living language, and the contribution made by each to the stock of inherited lcnoevledge and ideas is quite considerable. Patafijali's Maliābhāshya 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 centuries—which coincided with the bloom of the classical Prākrit litcrature and which also tvitnessed the Scythian invasions on a large scale—are a perfect blank to us ; and our next leap from Patafijali should be to Chandrago­ min, the founder of the Chāndra school. was a close student of Pāņini, Kātyāyana, and Patafijali, and for hisw orkhe utilized ali their labours, trying in several places, in the light of the changes that had come over
1 A faneiful explanation of Iho the Mah&bhSsbya were blown fact that some of Pčtņini’s away by the wind and others sūtras are not to bo found in got disarranged. Another aothe MahSbbUshjra rs given in count makes a m o n k e y tbo Patañjala*chBrita (Kūvyaresponsible for mūlEt, No. 51), whero it is said the accident* that some of the leaves of the 2 For a more detailed aceouni of originally oomplete ccpy of him see §§ 42 and £ollowings 22. Chandragomin and hts work. --Chandragomin 2

period la the h1story of the Pāņlnīya school —Pāņini,

( - i 23

Okandrkgomin at\d his mork


Sanskrit since the days of the author of the Mahābhāshya to improve upon them in tlie f oc ar as vvell as the matter of their sñtras and vārtikas and* ishtis. Chandragomiu was a Bauddha, and one of his objects in \vriting a new grammar must have been to supply, for the benefit of members of his Church, a gram m ar’tļha+ 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 Chandrāgomin and others tried to find in the Pāņinīya grammar were in it already implicitly provided for. This procedure was no doubt unhistoiical, but so was that of Kātyāyana or of PatafU jali. As yet we cannot fix upon any great leading names,1 but the traditional elaboration of the system of jñāpakas and Paribhāshās must be referred to the time somewhere between 470 (the date of Chandragomin) and 650 (the date of one of the authors of the Kāśikā). Itsing, the Chinese pilgrim, speaks of Jayāditya of Kāśmīr as the author o£ a grammatical work called vritti-sūtra, which it is usual to identi£y with the Kāśikā, a joint work of Jayāditya and Vāmana. Itsing tells us that Jayāditya died about A. D. 660 ; and if the above identification is correct,2 this gives us the date of the Kāśikā.
23. The Kāślkā of Jayādltya and Vāmṛna 1 Un less it be those of sļfžr, ṛfhnr, and mentionṅd in the Vākyapaḍlya, Kāņḍa secouḍ, «tanza 487. 2 Itsing’s accouot of tho by srinfipīr moy not after ali refer to the He speaks of a com. on the by Patafijali and writes as if STVtffjir completed the hinisdf. Evcnso, hovvever, we ennnol bring fho Kāśikā any earlier than 650 A. D., seuing that on iv. 3. 88 it mentions the Vffkyapadlya by nama. Jayāditya then «ppears.to be


of ŚemkrH Crammar

j 23 - $

. The KSeikS m s «tbe believed to be th e w<wk a£ oae author vawoaeljf c&Ued VSauua, Jajrāditya, or VSmanaJayāditya. It has now been found out that th e f are two distinct persans. Bliat^oji Dīkshita clearly disdnguisbfts between their views,‘ and. the concurreni tesflouMiy. o£ Ms». from ali pasts of Indra assigns to Jayāditya the authorship of the first five chapters of it, while the last three belong to Vāmana, who probably came soon after Jay§8itya and c'ertain!y before the time of Jinendrabuddhi, who comments upon the whole vvork.5 , Regarding the personality of the authors of the Kāśikā little definite isknown. Neither of them begins his work with any mañgaļa, both exhibit an unorthodox tendency to introduce changes into the vvording of the sūtras, and Jayāditya at any rate refers on i. 1. 36, with evident satisfaction, to the work of the Lokāyatikas.3 These reasons tend to show that the author or authors were Bauddhas. It is supposed that Jayāditya is to be identified with king Jayāpīia of Kāśmīr, whose minister, as mentioned by Kalhaņa, was a person named Vāmana.1 This may not be strictly accurate. Dr. Biihler believed that the author was a native of Kāśmīr.
at leaat a conteinporary of Pfiņiniv 4. 42; ^ 3Krf^Blmrtrihari the author of the I *D T H *W IV ■ YūkyapadTya. Vamana uho 2 0a the question of the diflercnt probab1y wrote the l&st three authorehip of the Kūtllkff gee chapters of the Ksśika came Dr. Bhandarkar’s Report for «oon after Jayādttya, and 1883-84, p. 58. Jinendrabuddhi, tbe author of 3 šee Bāla Suatii s edition of tbe the Nyāsa on the Kfttiiks came Kiīthkā, p. 62— * probably before 750, eeeiog rwrwi^nfi«*rwfsñr •m that he ia quoted by so early štaivk ṣn?t «rub i an author a s Bhlmaha. Com­ pare alao J. B. B. R. A« S. for nmnlt i sfvsfai «mammt 1909, p. 94; Indian Antiqnary, 'ļfim m ñ i i i h i , pp. 232-237 a n d x L i i , pp. 4 Dr. Biihler’* B«pmt far 1875-70, 253-264. p.78. I Compare tlt* on

( > 4 *4

Āfo&fcT o f f i ņ & d i t p Ā and* ¥ $ m m a

ģ ļl

< fv



fh e Kāakā i» a rtīnmng corantords^jr jtBļ ṭNSjṣinṛs A»fcfcidhyāļsii, aad k a metāt consists iñ the ludd raaminr in \vhich it has expfained tho *sātras of PSçiui, cl»Brly mdicafaag aU tfca anuVçitiis and ģiving nunrercnia* klāsts*»tions for each rula. Sometimes the Kāśikā g ivm m information -vrhich wa could not pqssibly h fie obtaiaed from any other source. Thus an Sfitra vii,3,9 5 it gifes us a rule of Apiśalip the graņun|riaq who preoeded Pāņini and whose work must coū8equlntly have been known to the authors of the Kāśikā. On sātra vii. a. 17 it gives us a vārtika of the Saunāgas other tban those quoted in the Mahābhlshya. 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 Kātyāyana.
24. The Indsbtednesa of the Kāśikā to Chandragomin.— Tho

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

Šystems o f Śanskrit GratAtitar

i *4 “ ]

from the vārtikas or from the notēs in the Mahābhāshya, as well as from some of the added rules. Most of the new matter found in the Kāśikā 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 Kāśikā.
25. Jlnemtrabuddhl * Nyā«t on the KāślkS.— An excellent commenta'ry 011 the Kāśikā called Kāśikā-vivaraṭta-pañjikā or Kāśikā-nyāsa is the work of Jinendrabuddhi,5who styles himself This informs us about his religion ; as to his date he çannot be later than 750 A. D., seeing that he is referred to by Bhāmaha, who says that a poet should never employ a compound in tvhich a verbal derivative in is compounded with a noun in the genetive case, and adds that he should not support such usage by the authority of the Nyāsa, which presumably is the same as this work.3

The Nyāsa follows closely on the lines of the Kāśikā and tries to incorporate into itself vvhatever new was produced upto its time.1 It is a pity that we as yet
1 Thus on iv. 2.338 Ksśika gives the sutra ilself in conformity the vartika with the Chandra vyākaraņa. i which is Chāndra Many more similar instances sñtra iii. 2.61 ; the ksriks on are given by Liebich in his v. 4.77 inthe Kthśtka embodies edition o f the Chūndra vyskasūtras iv. 4. 72 and 73, of raņa. Chandra, the Ksśikū further 2 Govt. Or. Mas. Library, MadraS, remarkingff$ūr^*r#*ftnfam«f Ms. no. 941 gives the name l»wr ; PSņini’s sūtra as viii. 3. 118, ^ See, however,thereference8cited Chandra ch&ogea into at the end of page 35. note 2 gsžffofe (vi. 4.98), following above. herein a vūrtika of Katyāyana 4 Compare—aivtṭrr* Hrt*rṛ3ļT*r fflWf



tn 9 w r irUT «

> wkile KKikā reuds

t m i *4

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


possess not a single edition of this ancient commentary. There is no complete Ms. of it in any hitherto known collection, but the several fragments may yield a tolerably complete text. And the commentary is well worth the labours of a critical editor, to judge from such frag­ ments of it as were' available to me at the Deccan College Mss. Library.
26. Haradatta's Padainañjarī on the Klślkā— There is another valuable commentary on the Kāśikā called the Padamafijarī by Haradatta. Haradatta was, as he himself informs us, the son of Padma-(or Rudra-)kumāra, and younger brother of Agnikuraāra; whilu his preceptor was one Aparājita. He was probably a native of the Tamil country and may subsequently have acquainted 'himself with the Telugu literature, as the instance of a vernacular word given by him seems to indicate.2 The Padamañjarī is quoted in the Mādhavīya Dhātuvntti and by Mallinātha, and itself quotes Māgha.3 According to a portion of the Bhavishyottara Purāņa giving the history of Haradatta (who is considered as an incarna1 Professor K. B. Pathak tells mo shortly (1912). Maitreyarakthat the Ms. in the Jain shita is reported to have writMatha at Śrāvaņa Belgoļa, ten a comraentary on the which is put down in the līsts Nyūsa, but 1 have not been able as a Nyāsa on the Śāka$5yanato verify the statement. dabdānu&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 underShāstri’s Report on the search standthat Prof.SriahChandra of Sanskrit and Tamil Mss. Chakravarti of Rajshahi Colfor 1893-94, Madrag, No. 2. lege, Bengal, has beon able 3 Bonares edition ( Reprint from to put together a tolerably the Paņḍit) pages 657, 715 coraplete copy of the text line 2 (ssMSgha iii, 74), &c. from Mss. collected from ali KirSta ii, 35 is qnoted on corners of India. He is page 237 line 3 ; and Bhattialso going to publish the woik kSvy• on page 541 Utte 16*


Systm s o f Sanskrit Grammar

5 aS-3

tkm of God Śiva,) ws learn th a t he died 3979 years after the beginning of Kali, which corresponds to 878 A. D. This account of the Bhavishyottara Purāņa probably doeś Arot refer to our%Haradatta, seeing that it gives Vāsudeva as the name of Haradatta’s father .1 Moreover, Haradatta’s Padamañjarī seems to be later than and partly based upon Kaiyyata’s Mahābhāshya-Pradīpa ,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. Bhartriharl’s Vākyapadīya.-From Padamañjarī, the commentary on the Kāśikā-, we go back to the writer who according to Itsing was a contemporary of Jayāditya, one of the authots of the Kāśikā; and this is 1x0 other thtṭn 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. Itsing’s account unmistakably
1 Mr. SheBhagiri Sbāstri BUggests, geniouB but not convmcing, loc.cit.,that Haradatta’s father and itmuBtyield tothechronomay have been a Vaisbņavo to 'logical evidence given below. begin with and may have 2 Compare Padamañjarī onii. 1.66 later changcd his name and (Benaresed. p 38411. 5fT.)\vitli become a Šaiva, just as Hara, PradTpa on tho sitme plaee datta hirneelf changed his ori(Nir. Sag. ed. of the Mahltginal name of Sudarśana into bhā8hya, part ii. p. 405). 8o the one which is more generalalso compare Padamañjarī on ly knovvn. 8ome «nch ehange ii. 1. 70 (p. 385) "witb Pradrpa of name may appear to have ontheaameplaceṭṭbid, p.414). been kinted at in tlie inlroMany more instances can be ductory s t a r u » V T f V T likewise adduoed to «bow the *t#lļW T īṣn g «ffiṁṅ i inderbtedneea of ’ PaḍBmañjarl BPEItrtr to tbe Pradlpa. tnm nT fvrg.B Ati tbi* is in-

[ - § 28

Bhartvihori ’s V5kyapadiya


refers to Bhartrihari the author of the Vākyapadlya and consequently also to the author of a commentary on the Mahābhāshya. Regarding the lattor work ali that we can say is that it was probaMy never completed by the author. The Gaņaratna-mahodadhi states that the commentary extends only to the first three fṭļṭdas. 1 Aecording to Dr. Buhler fragments of Bhartrihari’s 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 Vākyapadlya is a metrical discourse on the philosophy of grammar, distributed into three chapters : the Brahma or Agama-kāņda, the Vakya-kāņda, and the Pada or Prakīrņa-kāņda. The chief historical interest of the work attaches itself to the account given in about seven stanzas, towards the end of the second kāņda, confirming the statement of the Rājatarñgiņī about the fate of the Mahābhāshya.3 The passage also contains the earliest reference to the ChāDdra school, and mentions Baiji, Saubhava, and Haryaksha as grammarians who \vent before Chandrāchārya or Chandragomin, and who by their uncritical methods of study contributed not a little to the neglect of the Mahābhāshya during the early centuries of the Christian era.
28. Kalyyaṭa’s Pradipa as marklng the end of the second period In the hlstory ol the Pāņinīya school.—Betvveen Bhartri-

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

MHvñpmir «rontni t
2 See preface to K ielborn’s ed. of 6 l Sk. Gi. ]

p. 352 ; Indian Antiquary tur
1876, p. 245,

• 4*

Systems o f Śanskrit Grammar

§ 28 - 1

was confined to the systems of grammar outside the Pāņinīya school. These we shall notice in another place. For Pāņini’s school Kaiyyata’s Pradipa mārks the end of the second period of development. Kaiyyata vras probably, as his name indicates, a native of Kāśmīr. His father was Jaiyyata surnamed Upādhyāya, and his preceptor was one Maheśvara. In a coraraentary on Mammata's Kāvyaprakāśa 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 Bhāshya on the Yajurveda-Samhitā, whose father. was V ajrata; and since Bhimasena is a late writer we need not likewise attach much importance to the chronological relation betweeu Mammata and Kaiyyata as suggested by bira. Mammata was, we know, a great grammarian as well as a rhetorician wlio lived cir. 1100, and there is nothing improbable in his being a teacher to even 'Kaiyyata. Kaiyyat»’s lower limit.is. given by the circumstance that he is quoted in the Sarva-darśana-sañgraha (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 Mahābhāshya. His work has been,
1 aftura: 3?r*ir çnrṛsft Vnm^arrurntit irriSftfshj «rorBrflHļaorovPr RrftSr atr! H 2 Aufrecht’s Oxford Catalogue, p. 247 a. 3 Are we to auppoee, therefore, that Kaiyyaṭa had a coraplete manuacript Bhartrihari’a commentary on tbe Mahsbhffshya before him ? In that caae the ‘Tripadī’ alluded to in the Gaṇaratna-raahodadhi ( above, p. 41) muat be either a diatinct work, or may be no other than tbe Vskyapadlya itaelf, which ia in tbree oheplera.

[ - § 29 Kaiyyata's Pradīpa and commmtaries


in turn, commented upon by NSgojibhatta the author of the Pradlpodyota, by Nārāyaņa who has written a Vivaraņa upon it, and by īśvarShanda the pupilof Saty§nanda who has composed another similarly named commentary. None of thesew riters seetns to be earlier than A. D. 1600. We have already spoken of Haradatta’s Padamañjarī, which is based upon Kaiyyata’s work. For most of these • rvriters who followed Kaiyyata there was very ļ|ttle original work in the Pāņinīya school that was leftAo he done. Sanskrit had long been established as a classical language; it ceased to be influenced by current speech in anv vital manner. Hence in grammar there was no occasion for any Creative work ; and even the work of critical elaboration bad well-nigh run its course. This was also the period of the early Mulmmmedan incursions, which necessarily preceded their permanent occupation of īndia ; and it was, as was to be expected, marked by a general decadence of literature, reflecting a corresponding ebb in the tide of social and political activities. The study of grammar, accordingly, succumbed to the operation of the usual laws of demand and supply. In the next century or two there may have been petty commentators here and there, and, possibly, some really great writers, but none of their names even have survived the ravages of time. Later when the clouds cleared a little and literature began to flourish, the demand—feeble at first—which some of the enlightened Muhammedan rulers created was adequately met by popular schools of grammar, like the SSrasvata, tvhich now sprang into existence.
19. K t t u l s o f the A fhṭSdhyiyI : The RflpamSlI.— It W8S clear now that if the Pāņinlya granrmar was to keep abreast of the spirit of the times, it should have been remoulded and presented in easier and less ṛepellent style.


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

5 29 - ]

The earliest and on that gro und the simplest of these recasts of the Ashtādhyāyī that has corae down to us is the Rnpamālā of Vimalasarasvati, a writer who, if the date given in aiMs. of the work be true,1 must be placed not later than A. D. 1350. The arrangement of the work is in the style of later Kaumudīs. After treating of ^ rr, and ’rfbrr'TT the author deals with in four sections : srtilSHK, suāPSPT, and ; then follows declension in six parts: i ŚTSTPHin^T, ii. ĶS^imTēīT) iii iv. tH ṛV TH TH , v. irregular words like Hl%.- <nff &c., and vi. Vedic irregularities. After these come fJpTTrrs, their meanings and grammatical peculiarities, ^ftar?*nrs, and relations. The longest section deals with the srreuTērs, 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 «Tīfs. 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 Kaumudīs are an improvement on this their prototype. Vimalasarasvati’s 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 arraņgement and a somewhat more detailed treatment. Ali the same, the credit for having conceived the idea of such a recast and carried it irjto exe1 India office Ms. No. 612, whioh is stated to lmve been written in Samvai 1437 * 1379a.d. The same Ms, gives Sam, 1467 as another date. A Ms. deposited at the Deccan College ( No. 209 of 1879-80) is dated Sariivat 1507. Virnalasaraavali is quoted by Anuitabhārati, a writer of the Sārasvata school, a manuscript of whose work bears the date a. d* 1496.


| 3°

Recasts o f AshtHdkj&kī


eution must utigrudgingly be given to the author of the Rnpamālā.1
30. RSmaChandra’BPrakrijlkaumudī and Its cemmenlsrles —

Next In chronological order comes the PrakriySkaumudf of Rāmachandra, a writer who probably belongs to tbe first half of the fifteenth century. He was a Dakshini Brahraan, the son of a Ki’ishņāchārya, and was eminently versed in grammar and Vedānta and astronomy, in ali of which he has written origin3l works of his own.* The Prakriyākauraudl is supposed to have been the modei for Bhattoji’s Siddhāntakaumudī. There are several coramentaries extant on Rāmchandra’s Prakriyākaumudī of which the most famous is the Prasāda of Vitthalāchārya. The earliest Ms. of the Prasāda is dated Samvat 1605-6 = A. D. 1548-9 ; hence Vitthalāchārya 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, Trilochanadāsa, Kshīrasvāmin, Durgasimha, Jinendrabuddhi, Bhartnhari, Vāmana, Haradatta, and Bopadeva.3 Vitthala tells us that he was the son of Nrisimhāchārya and grandson of Rāmakrishņāchārya, while his own son was named Lakshmīdharāchārya. Another commentary on the Prakriyākaumudī that * demands apassing notice is the Prakriyāpraklśa of ŚeshaKrishņa the son of Śesha-Nrisimhasñri. As he tells us in the introduction to his commentary, which extends to 46 stanzas, he composed this comment for tbe benefit of Prince Kalyāņa, the son of a (petty) king of Patrapufija,
1 B hatfoji D lkehita acknow ledges detaiD, for w hith «ee BendaU’t 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 Aufreoht’e Qxford Oaialogue Tbe i&fomation camea from gi w ibeae and other names. Vitthala who al«o gives other


Sļtstms d f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 30 - ]

a small place in the Dmb formed by the Ganges and the
Vamunā. Śesha-Krishna, as we shall presently see, was the preceptor of Bhattoji Dīkshita, 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 Siddhāntakaumudī of Bhattoji Dīkshita,—a work which is remarkable not only by reason of the host of commcntaries and sub-commentaries that it called into being, nor again because it is at present practically the only popular introduction to Pāņini's grammar, but also owing to the fact—strange as it may appear—that it has eventually ousted Pāņini him­ self and most of the other ancient authors of grammar, as also the nuraerous new schools that had lately sprung into existence. The work is too well known to need any detailed exposition. From the list of previous authors quoted by Bhattoji in this and his other works* we can gather that he freely availed himself of such help as he could possibly get. His indebtedness to one work, however, we learn, only from Meghavijaya, the author of Haima-Kaumudī, who tells us that Bhattoji’s Kauraudī was largely modelled upon Hemachandra’s Śabdānuśāsana.* Bhattoji was the son of Lakshmīdhara and the brother of Rañgoji Dīkshita, while his son was variously known as Bhānu-dīkshita, Vīreśvara-dīkshita or Rāmi* śraraa. Regarding the other details of Bhattoji’s life Jagannātha, the court pandit of the Emperor Shahajahan, informs us in his Manoramākuchamardinī that Bhattoji was the pupil of Śesha-Knshņa, to whose memory he does
1 Other commentariea on efikvrAufrecht’a Oxford Catalogue, are by «rļfbrrv, p. 162. by aimraftsunflH,, 3 Petereon’a report iii, p.291. I by am not »ure about tha truth of 2ļ Jtn exhao»tive*Uat ia givon in Una rtatement.

[ - 5 31

Šhattoji s 'sSiddhtntakaumudi

very scant justice in h is Praudha-Manoramā. As Jagannātha himself w»s the pupil of the son of this ŚeshaKrishņa, this gives us Bhattoji’s date, which must be about 3L D. 1630. This is also confirraed by the fact that a pupil of Bhattoji vrrote a work in Samvat 1693.* Bhattoji himself wrote a commentary on his Siddhānta-kaumudf, called Prai^ha-Manoramā to distinguish it from an abridgment of the samtf called Bāla-Manoraraā also by the same author. Besides shorter works such as commentaries oft thePāņinīva Dhātupātha, LiñgānuśSsana, &c, Bhattoji vrrote the Śabda-kaustubha which is a voluminous commentary on Pāņini’s Ashtādhyāyī similar in plān to the Kāśikā. This was left, probably, incorap lete; though he must have written as far at least as the fourth āhnika of adhyāya iii, and uot only the first pāda of the first adhyāya, as is usually supposed.3 Besides Jagannātha’s commentary on the PraudhaManoramā, there is another written by Nāgeśā, but ascribed by him to his teacher Hafi-dīkshita,. just as Nāgeśa ascribed another work, a commentary on the Adhyātma-Rāraāyaņa, to his parton. Śabda-kaustubha sirailarly is commented upon by Nāgeśa and by Nāgeśa’s pupil Vaidyanātha Pāyaguņda. To commentaries ancient aud modēm on the Siddhāntakaumudī there is no limit. Those most famous are the Tattvabodhinī by Jñānendrasarasvati, pupil of Vāmanendra-sarasvati, which treats 1 Compare ftr
f « wq;wrcgHj»f&e* w i« l .....
*flry«mqfiOTī«H.. 2 Deccan College M». No. 183 of A.1882-83, the author of which vflRvnntlV Vrt 3 Gov. Or. Ma«. Library, Ifadraa, W vr m M luvṁl .«I fifth Bbnika of aḍby«ya iii.



Śj/sžms o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 3* ~ j

«£ tbe classical language only and omits tbe svara and vaidikī prakriyā. It is mostly modelled on Bhattoji’s ovra comraentary and is very useful for beginners, JayakrishĢa, son ol Raghunāthabhatta of the Mauni family has urritten a čommentary on the svara and vaidiki prakriyS only of the Siddhānta-kaumudī, thus complcting that of Jfiāoendra-sarasvati. Both these writers probably belorrg to the first half of the eighteenth century. Regarding the' abridgments of the Siddhānta-kaumudī and otber shorter manuals based upon itwe shall speak presently. The family of Bhattoji Dīkshita seems to have been a faraily of great writexs and grammarians up and down. Bhattoji’s nephew Koņdabhatta wrote an original work on syntax and philosophy of grarumar modelled on the lines of his illustrous uncle and being in fact a discursive gloss on some 74 kārikās of Bhattoji. Bhattoj’s son BhSnuji taught several pupils, as also his grandson Haridīkshita. Among the pupils of the latter is ranked no less an illustrious nāme than that of Nāgojibhatta or N igeśa.’
1 These relations would be clear from the fo llow in g geneological table—

Author of

I 8 O D 8 1




\ 1 ..............................................


i V t i l g Author o£ the

srtrampr H f& n

(1650 A, D.)

disciple wrote in lṣṣo A. l>.

diBciple or H ļih n w «



wrdte in 1641 A. L > .


[ - § 33

Works of Nñgeh and Pāyaguņda


32. The «erki of NSg«e« and of Va|dyuittltt

Nāgeśa or Nāgojibhatta vras a vcry prolific vrrifcer. Bosides fourteep great works on Dharma, one on Yoga, three on Alañkāra, and about a dozea on Vy.ākaraņa-śāstra, he has been credited v ith the aufchorsbip of extensive commentaries on Vālmīki-Rāmāyaņa and Adbyātma. Rāmāyaņa as also on Saptaśatī, Gitagovinda, Sudbilabari, and other works. We are here concerned with his grammatical treatises, and prorainent amongst these is the Udyota on Kaiyyata’s Mahābhāshya-pṛadīpa; Paribhāshenduśekhara, a collection o£ Paribhāshās handed down in connection with Pāņini's grammar and £ollowed by a concise explanatory commentary on them called the Šabdenduśekhara (in tvvo editions a major and a minor) ; a commentary on the Siddhānta-kaumudī and intended as a companion to the Manoramā ; Sabdaratna, a commentary on the Praulha-Manoramā, ascribed by him honoris causa to his teacher Hari-dīksbita ; Vishamī a commentary on Bhattoji’s Sabda-kaustubha ; and finally the Vaiyākaraņasiddhāntamañjāshā (in three editions) on the philosophy of grammar. The geneological tree given above exhibits Nāgojibhatta’s spiritual descent from his illustrious predecessors ; it also helps us roughly to determine his time. In addition vre have a tradition current at Jeypur, and mentioned by the learned editor o£ the KāvyamālS in his introduction- to Rasagañgādhara, tvhich refers to an invitation for a horse sacrifice received in 1714 A. D. by Nāgeśabhatta from Savāi Jeysimha, ruler of Jeypur (1688 to 1728 A.D), an invitation which Nāgeśa courteouslv declined on the ground that he had taken kshetra-sannyīLsa and could not, therefore, leave Benares to attend the ceremony. Regarding himself he informs us that he w&s a Mahratta Brahman surnamed Kāļe, the son o£ Sivabhatta and Satl, a ṛesident of Benares and a protegee of
7 [ Sk. G r.)


Systems o f Sanskrit ūrammār

§ 32 - ]

Rāmasimha, a local prince o£ Śriñgaverapura (now Singarour) a few miles north of Allahabad. Vaidyanātlia or Bālarabbatta Pāyaguņda, a direct disciple o£ Nāgeśabhatta, wrote like his teacher several works on Dharma and Vyākaraņa-śātra. He was the son c£ MahSdeva and Veņī, and LakshmTdevī the wife of king Chandrasimha o£ Mithilā was probably his patroness, in whose honour he is reported to have composed a commentary on the Vyavahāra-kāņda o£ the Mitāksharā, which is usually known as Bālambhattī. His graramatical labours are mainly confined to writing comments on the works o£ his predecessors. Thus he has written a Gadā on the Paribhāshenduśekhara, a Chhāyā on the Mahābhāshya-pradīpodyota, a Kalā on Vaiyākaraņasiddhāntamafijnshā, a Prabhā on the Śabdakaustubha, a Bhāvaprakāśikā on the Sabdaratna, Chidastliimālā on the Sabdenduśekhara, and a host o£ others.
33. Grammatlcal works outslde the Dīkshita school.—Inde-

pendently of the Dīkshita school there are very few notable names o£ grammarians belonging to the seventeenth century. We may perhaps mention, as belonging to the early decades o£ the century, Annarabhatta the author of the Tarkasañgraha, who has written an indenpendent commentary’ on the Aslitādhyāyī, called Mitā­ ksharā. 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 Pāņinīya school.
1 ṛaUufbed ia tbe Benares Sanskrit Beries.

[ —§ 3< 5

Abridgements and Manuals


34. Abridgements and Manuals.—Prominent among these are the abridgements of the S’ ‘ddhānta-Kaumud! itself by Varadarāja. There are three editions of them —a madhya-, a laghu-, and a sāra-Siddhāntakaumudī,—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 ṛatuer tba reverse of it. The major abridgment was commented upon by Rāraaśarman at the request of one Sivānanda ; the middle one by a Jayakrishņa, son of Raghunāthabhatta and grandson of Govardhanabhatta of the Mauni family.1 There are a fe\v other easy texts framed independently of the Siddhāntakaumudī, but they hardly deserve special mention. The last stage of this progressivo simplification is perhaps reached when we come to works such as Rupāvali, Saraāsachakra, etc.
35. Later hlstory of treatises accessory to Pāņini’s grammar.—

It only remains now, finally, to speak of the further history of the treatises accessory to Pāņini’s 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. DbStupSṭba—The Dhātupātha as we find it embodi-

ed in the Pāņiniya system was commented upon by
1 The irfžrirr has a simiiar abridgment calld the irork of one of the pupils of the author, and written in a, d. 1631 (?)«


Sjtstems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 36 — ]

Kshīrasvāmin. A Kāśmīrian tradition raakes him teacher to king Jayāpīda, which brings him into the eighth century. This conāicts with the fa ct that Kshīrasvāmin quotes Bhoja, and in far as he is guoted by Vardhamāna inthe Gaņaratnamahodadhi, this settles his date, tvhich is roughly xo5o A. D.1 Besides the Dhātuvritti Kshīrasvāmin wrote five other works : i. comraentary on the Amarakosha, ii. iii. śHTHčTnfvfr referred to in the Dhātuvritti (which is more usuallv known as ), iv. f»ivug(£f% meutioned by Devarāja in his Niruktanirvachana, and v. Gaņavritti referred to by Vardhamāna in his Gaņaratnamahodadhi, a work presently to be mentioned. In the introduction to the Dhātuvritti Kshīrasvāmin notēs 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 Chāndra school, whose Dhātupātha was subsequently incorporated by Durgasirhha with the Kātantra grammar. About the nature of the contents of the Dhātuvritti Kshīrasvāmin tells us that one can find therein : v^Mii^ṛīvīinntt n«jRt i » ffrģmrfrP T T ftfrrra: 1 1 Of other works of Kshīrasvāmin it is not necessary to say much in this place. We next turn our attention to the Mādhvīya-Dhātuvritti, which deals with the same subject and which was ṛṛritten by Mādhava or Sāyaņa, the great Vedic Bhāshyakāra (1350 A.D). Sāyaņa also mentions numerous workers in the same field whose labours he partly utilised. Among
1 8ee Introduction to Mr. Oka’s edition of KsblrasvSioin’a 00m. on Araara.
2 Compare— *nrr* <tm vP>r«rv-

r^rcir atft. ^ *rw fogfvñt I «rçRffft wvv?W II

{ - § 3$

A$tessory Treatises


these may be mentioned, as belonging to the Pāņinīya school, Bhimasena and Maitreyarakshita.1 Of Slvaņa’s successors īve need only specifj Bhattoji and Nāgeśa. The Dhātupāthas belonging to tho other gramraatical schools will be found in their proper places elsewhere.
37. Gaņapāṭh».~The Pāņinīya Gaņapātha has not received from corarhcntators the attention that it m erits.. Different portions of it, such as vipātas, avyayas, and upasargas have been individually explahied by various writers, and Ksliirasvāmin, as we saw, is reported to have written a Gaņavritti, which is no longer extant. The only complete work on tho Gaņapātha is the Gaņaratnamahodadhi, vrhich is a metrical arrangement of the Gaņas followed by a lucid commentary, both composed by Vardharaāna in A. D. 1140. 38. Llñginuśsgana.— Besides Rāmachandra and Bhattoji, who have embodied the Liñgānuśāsana in their Kaumudīs and written commentaries upon it, we find mentioned in connection with the Pāņinīya treatises on genders the names of Harshavardhana, Śabarasvāmin and Vararuchi. Of these the first is probably not the same as the celebrated patron of Bāņa, while the second may or may not be identical with the great Mīmāñsākāra. Vararuchi is another name for Kātyāyana, and even if these be considered as different, so many late and spurious works are assigned to this great name that it is well-nigh difficult to determine the genuineness of any one of them. A palmleaf Ms. at Cambay, dated Samvat 1287 contains a Liñgā­ nuśāsana by Vāmanāchārya, which mentions among its predecessors the works of Vyādi, Vararuchi, Chandra, and Jinendra.2 This would at least decide for the existence of
1 Seo note 1 on pago 39, above. 2 Cambay, No. 266 ; «nfiṁjfiṛTfTO §|V n 'g$»qrntr
r lf lv tnṛP'Tšṝ i fçnṛiīfv 55$* ṛm vi (HM'žFfflUft rut &C. See aleo Dr. Peterson’s


Systm s o f Sanskrit Grammar


these works prior to 1200 A. D., and, i£ Dr. Peterson’s identification o£ Vāraanāchārya with the author of the Kāśikā be correct, prior also to 800 A. D. 39J Uņādipāṭha — The question as to the authorship o£ the Paņinīya Uņādi-sūtras has been already dealt with (p. 23, above). These Uņādis have been very readily absorbed—witli only slight modifications—by the various non-Pāņinīya schools such as Kātantra, Hairaa, Jaumara, Saupadma, &c. In the school o£ Pāuīni the future developraent of the Uņādis has been only by way o£ com­ mentaries, the best known being Ujjvaladatta’s 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 Kshapaņaka, Govardhana, Purushottamadeva, and the Satī-vntti,—ali of which preceded his own commentary. Later than Ujjvaladatta come Māņikyadeva, Bhattoji, and others. 40. Paribhāshās.— Already we have more than once alluded to the Pāņinīya paribhāshās. Pāņini himself gave a £e\v of these as his sūtras, but he can be proved to have tacitly employed a stili larger number.' Kātyāyana quotes one, according to Patañjali’s showing, in his vārtika 3 to sūtra i. 1. 65, while Vyādi, who according to some was a near relation of Pāņini, is credited with the authorship of almost ali the paribhāshās now current. The doctrine o£ the paribhāshās was, however, fully elaborated by Patañjali and the writers who came after him.2 So much ingenuity and energy has been spent on the
Report iii. p. 41. The Jinen- 2 For Ihe ḍistinction between dra here mentioned must be iTPṛrç’ S' and ļļinthiļai and the the founder of the Jainendrawho!e theory of psribhSshās VySkaraņa. see ibidem, pp. 115 (Reprint, 1 Goldstiioker: Pāņini, page 114 p. 89) and the folloving. (Reprint, p, 87).

[ - § 4*

Aceessorji Treatises


paribhāshās that eventually it has become, for the Pāņinīya student, the hardest nut to crack. This fe# has usually been attempted in the body o£ the commentaries themselves. Regular treatises specially dealing with paribhāshās come much later. Perhaps the earliest known is that of Sīradeva, vrho is quot.ed in the Mādhavīya-Dhātuvṛitti. Nāgeśa’s Paribhāshenduiekhara coutains the most popular exposition of the- paribhāshās, and it has been commented upon by Pāyaguņda, Bhaira\amiśra, Seshaśarman, Bhīmabhatta, and many others. Non-Pāņinīya schools copied most of their paribhāshās from Pāņini, the earliest of tbem being the Kātantra for which Durgasirhha put together a list of paribhāshās and wrote a commmentary on the same. This is also the place where \ve can introduce a host of treatises on the philosophy of grammar—dealing with questions such as the nature of sound, the connection between word and its meaning or of sentence and its component parts, and so fortli. The issues have been raised and dealt with in the Mahābhāshya itself, and later writers have derived most o£ the material for their lucubrations from that source. The earliest of such treatises is the Vākyapadīya of Bhartrihari and the latest deserving a special mention is the Vaiyākaraņasiddhāntabhūshaņa of Koņdabhatta, a commentary on which was written by Nāgeśa. A multitude of smaller and larger lights came in between. The works are mainly special monograras on particular topics, the kāraka relations alone having engaged over forty writers of different schools and opinions. 4 t. Resum? ol the history of the Pāņ!nlya school —Here per­ haps we may draw a deep breath and, before proceeding with the history of the non-Pāņinīya schools of grammar» cast a hurried glance over the field that we have already travelled.

Śystm s o f Šanskrit 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 Yāska who sums up the results achieved by his predecessors and makes his own contribution to the stream. The leap from Yāska to Pāņini is probably a very great one, but the course of development is, to a large extent, hidden from us—is underground as it were—until it issues in a perfect form in the Ashtādhyāyi of Pāņini. The subsequent history of the science is marked by three well-defined stages. The first which ends with the Mahābhāshya busies itself with the perfection of Pāņini’s work, adding a rule here, restricting the application of anotlrer there, and so on. This period may be characterised as the Creative stage of the science. This is followed by a period of critical elaboration, the chief \vork of ivhich consists in giving a precise point to these rules, changing the wording of some for the sake of brevity, of others for including in it a word or two inadvertently left out by the earlier grammarians, or not in vogue in their time ; but for the main part in writing vast commentaries on the vṛorks of their predecessors so as to explain their intention. This was also the stage when the theory of the paribhāshās and jñāpakas was worked out in details. The branching offi from the main stem of a separate school, the Chandra, which belongs to this period, is to be explained as due rather to the necessities of the tinies, than to any real split in the domain of the science itself. This period cxtends roughly to about 1000 A. D. The last stage mārks 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 Chāndra School


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

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


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 42 - ]

have had a direct access to the Chandra vyākaraņa, 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 Kāśmir in 1875, and a complete copy of the Chāndra vyākaraņa written in the Nepalese year 476 (i. e. 1356 A. D.) brought by Haraprasāda Shastri from Nepal.] However, by the labours of Dr. Bruno Liebich, the whole system has now been recovered in the original or Tibetan translation. The same scholar has also published the Chāndra vyākaraņa (Leipzig 1902). The ac­ count of the systera given below is mostly based on his writings.
43. The date of Chandragomin.— Chandra, or more accurately, Chandragomin must have lived at least some time before the authors of the Kāśikā, which has borrowed, always without acknowledgment, such sūtras of Chandra as have no parallel either in Pāņini or in Kātyāyana. This gives us 650 A. D. as the lower liinit for Chandra­ gomin. The upper limit is supplied by a vritti on the Chāndra sūtras, most probably the worlc of Chandragomin himself,8 which gives the sentence 3T3Higfit(? Ms. vrñFr or 5nft) as an illustration of the use of the iraperfect to express an event which occurred within the lifetirae of the speaker. This victory over the Hāņas can refer either to their temporary defeat by Skandagupta soon after 465 A.D., or (less likely) to their final expulsion by Yaśodharmas in 544 A. D. This gives us 470 as the approximate date for Chandragomin. This result is further confirmed by the fact that Vasurāta the preceptor
1 See Nechrichten der Goettinger Datum Chandragomin’s und Gesellachaft 1895, pp. 272-321. KālidSeaV’, p. 3. 2 See Dr. Liebich’s paper “ Das 3 Who, however, was not a Gupta.

[ - § 44

Chandragomin: H is Work


of Bhartrihari acknorvledged Chandrāchārya (Chandragom in) as his master.1 Chandragomin must have lived therefore at least two generations before the author of, the VākyapadīvsR Ali accounts agree in stating that Chandragomin has a Bauddha. He was one of the laity, and is not to be confused with Chandradāsa who belonged to the order.s
44. Nature of Chaoḍragomin’s work,— Chandragomin’s grammar was meant as an improvement on that of Pāņini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali, mainly in the way of greater brevity and precision. Accordingly he has omitted, for obvious reasons, the Pāņinīya rules about Vedic accent and grammar, although he includes some Vedic roots in his Dhātupātha. He has lessened the number of pratyāhāra-sñtras by one (fusir.g ķ itītķ and gruṭ into gnvtHH), omitted some of the Pāņinīya pratyāhāras and coined others. In many cases, the rules of Pāņini are recast simply for the sake of securing facility of pronunciation.-3 The really original contributions of Chandragomin amount to about 35 sātras and these have been incorporated in the Kāśikā. In ali these cases Kaiyyata has the remark śmfin'jfpr trrj:. The total number of the Chāndra sātras is about 3100 as against 4000 of Pāņini. The vvork consists of six chapters of four pādas each, the matter of Pāņini’s first two chapters being scattered ali through.

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


Systems o/Sanskrit Grammar

§ 44 - 3

speech.’ The ChSndra terminology with slight changes is that of Pāņini'. The mode of presen ting the subject is also artificial, after the fashion of Pāņini. The gramar goes by tffe nickname of arśira», perhaps because the tfļnrs are not here treated of separately, but probably be­ cause wherever in his sātra Pāņini has used the word ^ r r Chandragomin uses the word Hirra;.1
43. Accessory treatises of the Chāndra grammar.—In addition to the sūtras in six adhyāyas Chandragomin has put together an Uņādi list in three parts, a Dhātupātha in ten sections (both published by Dr. Liebich), as also Liñgakārikās or Liñgānuśāsana, Gaņapātha, Upasargavritti, and Varņa sūtras. The Uņādis differ from those belonging to the Pāņinīya school principally in their mode of presentation, the suffixes being here arranged according to their final letter. In a few cases Chandra also derives the words differently. The Dhātupātha, as we saw (p. 52, above), is referred to by Kshīrasvāmin and was subsequently incorporated in the Kātantra system. The Liñgānuśāsana is referred to by Vāmanāchārya, Ujjaladatta, and Rāyamukuta (see above, p. 53). As to the Gaņapātha 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 sūtra-vritti, just as the Kāśikā has done \vith regard to the Pāņinīya Gaņapātha. The Upasarga­ vritti is found in Tibetan version only, and explains the jneaning and use of about twenty upasargas. Finally, the Varņasūtra (Ms. no. 289 of 1875-76 in the Deccan College collection) is a very short treatise8 corresponding to the Pāņiniya Śikshā and gives in about 40 sūtras
1 Compare Chāndra sfitras i. 2.30, Chandra pormits the use of i. 3. 77, ii. 2.14, &c. witb the word: e. p. Chandra i, 1. Pāņini’s iii. 2.46, iii. 3.174, 123s=Pāņini 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

[ - ļ 46

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


the and mJHT of Vṅh. No work on Paribhāshās in connection with the Chāndrā school has come down to us. Besides the above grammatical vvorks Chandragomin is credited with the authorship of a religious poem called Sishyalekhā, and a drama called Lokānanda, neither probably of much consequence.
46. Later hiatory of the ChSndra school.— We have already

alluded to Chandragomin’s own vritti on his grammar. Fragments from it extending from about v. 1. 13 to v. 1. 176 are stili extant. This vritti was later incoporated in a commentary by Dharmadāsa, a complete Ms. of vrhich exists in the Library of the Mahārāja of Nepal. It is undoubted that there must have been vvritten numerous commentaries on the Chāndra Vyākaraņa 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 Chāndra 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 more—about fifteen—are known to exist, mostly in Tibetan translations.’ Such of the Sanskrit Mss. as we knovv of, come ali from Nepal. Having once enjoyed such a vast circulation, the almost total disappearance of the system from India requires explanation. We can account for this fact, firstly, on the ground of its vvant of originality, such of the original matter as there was—and it vvas not much—beof the only Ma. of the work 1 For a list of these see Ind. Aut. known to exist. See Appenxxv, pp. 103 and £ollowing.


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar § 46 - ] 4 # ing already incorporated in the Pāņinīya school through the Kāśikā. 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 poiņting 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 Chāndra system to be diligently studied there. As a matter of fact, the current Sanskrit grammar in Ceylon belongs to the Chāndra school, but we shall look in vain for any original Mss. either of the Chāndra-sūtras or of commentaries thereon. The reason is that about 1200 A. D, a Ceylonese Buddhistic priest, Kāśyapa by name, wrote a popular recast of the Chāndra grammar called Bālāvabodha. It corresponds to Varadarāja’s Laghu-kaumudī in treatment and subject-matter. The work was so popular in Ceylon that it quite superseded the original Chāndra text, with the result that ali other Chāndra works have disappeared in course of time, just as the works of the pre-Pāņinīya grammarians did after the advent of Pāņini. Under these circumstances, it is quite irapossible to pursue any farther the history of the Chāndra school of grammarians in India.


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

[ - § 47

T&e Jainendra School


of the Digambara' Jains as erabodied in several of their works such as Samayasundarasr.ri’s commentary on the Kalpasūtras or Lakshmīvallabha’s ’Jpadeśamālākarņikā is, that Indra asked certaiu questions to Jina when of eight years, and had the science of gpjjrmaar revealed to him by way of answers; the grammar in consaquence came to be known by their joint name.2 A Ms. ( p o . 1223) belonging to Professor Kathavate’s collection for 18911895 launches, in its marginal notēs, into a detailed verification of this tradition, trying to answer ali the objections raised aganist it, The chief objection, of course, is the concurrent testimony of the colophons of ali the Mss., which invariably ascribe the work to Devanandī. This is also confirmed by the introductory stanza— trnr fSrrarcrnroreñt 1 which is given by ali Mss.,3 wherein the first word of the second line, obscure in meaning as it is, appears to be purposely used to indicate the name of the author. Further, vorks like Dhanañjaya-kośa or Jaina-Harivamśa4 (A. D. 783) and writers like Bopadeva or Hemachandra refer to Devanandī as the author of this grammar. The point then may be regarded as fairly settled. This Devanandī is otherwise known as Pūjyapāda.
1 The Jainendra-gutrapūtha be 3 Except the one above quoted, longs to the Digambarag from whicb gives a different mañwhom the Śvetūmbaroś have gala. borrowed it whole6ale. The 4 In the opening prašasti of the tradition, therefore, belongs work thfre ie a reference to more strictly to the Śvetāmthe Jainendra-vyskaraņa. Akabaras. lafikadeva also quotes a Jain2 endra autra in the fa rn i ffa ri. 5.1.

Systems 0 / Sanskrit Grammar

5 47 ” 3

Dr. Kielhom once believed that Pājyapāda was a nom de plūme assumed by a late writer, with the view ali the more readily to make the vrork pass under the name of the last* Tirthañkara. 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 Nandisañgha Pattāvali2 and gives other references to prove that Devanandī was no other personage than Pūjyapāda himself.
48. Date of the Jalnendra-vyākaraņa.— The foundation of this school datēs from about the same time as that of the Chāndra. If anything, the Jainendra would come a little before the Chāndra. Professor Pathak in his paper on the Jaina čŚākatāyana (Indian Antiquary, Oct. 1914) gives evidence to assign the Jainendra-vyākaraņa to the latter part of fifth century A. D. Among his arguments are: 1. the fact that the Kāśikā seems to betray a knowledge of the Jainendra-vyākaraņa3; 2. the circumstance that the Jainendra sūtra1 alludes to īśvarakrishņa the author of the Sāñkhya-kārikās ( who is assigned by Dr. Takakusu to A. D. 450) and to the twelve year cycle of Jupiter ac­ cording to the heliacal rising system5 a system which was in vogue in the time of the Early Kadamba kings and their contemporaries, the Early Gupta kings; and 3. the collateral evidence to be drived from later references to the Jainendra from the ninth century on. Thus the Śākatā-

2 iRTisftftrtnFipTsfl'

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

4 Sūtra iii. 3.134— f^ṣm ® «orw r ^gw Fm rrw -

S"m rr:« Pūņini, iv. 1.102. TheAmo3 Kffśiks iii. 3.40 TSTTOT vrHetfcft ghavritti of ŚSkaṭSyana expresuppoaea Jainendra plaina 3fffi r$wWifl aūtra ii. 3. 36 fW r^yH PRṭthe latter beirg another name V '%i, aa K lśiks could not for īśvarakriahṇa. have derived it from elae- 5 Sūtra iii. 2.5 where.

i - § 49 fainendra-vy$karaņa .• Its Čharacter

' 65

yaria Śabdānuśāsana (which datēs from 1025 A. D., as we # a l l see) is largely indebted to the Jainendra. A Diģambara Darśanaśāstra of I853 A. D. mentions, as stated by Dr. Peterson,1 a pupil of a certain Pūjyapāda as being the founder of a Dravida-sañgha. Lastly, an iñscription from the ŚaHkhabasti tempie at Lakshmeśvara records a gift in fśaka 652 (730 A. D.) of Śrī-P9jyapāda to his house-pupil, although this l^st is not quite a trustworthy evidence, being not contemporanfcous, and there may have been more than one P 9jyapāda.
49. Character ol the Jalnendra-vyākaraņa.— There are tWO versions in which the Jainendra grammar has come down to us. The shorter one which consists of about 3,000 Sātras 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 sūtras, gives over 700 sātras not foūnd in the shorter version, is followed by Somadeva in his commentary called Śabdārņavachandrikā, which, as he himself tells us, was composed in A. D. 1205. Professor Pathak has accumulated evidence tending to show that the longer version followed by Somadeva is the truer one, while that of Abhayanandī is much later.8

The Jainendra grammar is altogether wanting in originality. It is nothing but Pāņini and the vārtikas 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 triñing changes such as that of or into Tr, of into ç, and the alteration of the order of the words in the sātras3 so as to
1 Beport for 1883-84, p. 74. subjeot. 2 Professor Pathak intends short- 3 Paṇini vij. 1.9 w rf f*rcr ifa. is Iy to «rite a paper on the ohanged into foṣftsiT Vff •

» [Sk,Ģt.)



Systtms o f Sanskrit Grammur

. \ 49. - J

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

3 vvvTs#m (?)nt

1 rriti
1 fredf o n a l w hp

ond «0 on.
2 Namelv, efpflT, Vtfthṛft

1 (hrm w r t
“ tn ṭ m m H ļr i ’’


[- ■ § $0 •Jainmdra<yākaraņa : Later History


been preserved, one by Abhayanandī whose date i> probably 750 A. D., and another callcd Śabdāniava-chandrikl by Somadeva. Somadeva represents1 himself as the contemporary of the ŚilāhSra King Bhojadeva (Bhoja II) and an inhabitant of Ajurikā (\vhich is probably to be identified with arnft in the Kolhapur State). It is probable that in addition to these trvo commentaries that have come down to us, some other s were written, and possibly the grammar was at one time made the object of diligent study; but our information on this point is extreraely scanty. There is also a recast of the Jainendra grammar meant to facilitate its study for beginners. It is called Pafichavastu, and, as is to be expected, it follotvs the shorter text of the Sūtras as given hy Abhayanandl. The work is said to be that of Devanandī; but this is clearly a mistake i'ounded 011 the fact that the sūtras follovved are those of Devanandī. The introductory section of the Pañchavastu which deals with the pratyāhāras seems to be an interpolation. This section mentions a person called Ārya-Srutakīrti3 as the author of the whole work. Is he then the author of this recast ? If so, the absence of any other allusion to him in the body of the vvork becomes rather curious. Professor Pathak mentions a Śrutakīrti as having flourished about Śaka 1045. About the history of the Jainendra grammar since the thirteenth century very little definite is known. The work probably shared the fate of ali imitations and ceased
1 Compare the Col ophon— nm r $ t.iLtTkvn^

«ft w -

.........................2 Indien Antiqu»ry, x, p. 75; .«fhfht Dr. Petereoṁ» Beport for 1883-84, pp. 67 ff.
; M I1


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 5o - ļ

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

The Saktayana School
51. The śākaṭfiyana School.—Separated from the Jainen­ dra school by some two centuries or so but much allied to it in its object and the mode of treatment comes the Śākatāyana Śabdānuśāsana, which, like its predecessor, was meant to appeal to a limited body of co-religionists : the Śvetāmbara Jains. To judge from the number of regular commentaries and other accessory treatises in connection with this school and from the numerous references to it in works like the Gaņaratna-mahodadhi, MadhavlyaDhātuvritti and so forth, it would appear that at one time the Śabdānuśāsana 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 Śfikaṭāyana Śabdānuśāsana not the ancient Śfikaṭāyana but his modern namesake.— The name Sāka-

t,āyana suggests, as \ve have seen, a very high antiquity in that it is quoted in the Nirukta (i. 3) and in Pāņini's Ashtādhyāyī (iii. 4.111, viii. 3.18, viii. 4.50), Here, however, we are dealing not with the ancient Śākatāyana— none of whose works have survived even in name—but with a modern or abhinava Śākatāyana: with the person who under this appelation is quoted, for instance, in Bopadeva's Kāmadhenu,1 by Hemachandra. and other later writers.
1 Colebrooke, Mil. Bśsay8, Vol. II. p. 44; Aufrecbt’i Oiford Catalogue p. 17C a.

r “ § 53

Abhinava-Śākatāyana : His Date


The late Dr. Kielhorn once expressed doubts as to the historical existence of this modern Śākatāyana. He inclined to the mew that it was some modern Jain writer who has presented his own grammatical labours under the auspicies of a revered name, carefulljṁ trying to follow the views attributed to him in ancient works and possibly having for its basis some of the teachings of the earlier Sākatāyaua. Professor Pathak’s paper on the Jaina Sākatāyana (Indian Antiquaiy for October 1914) has now conclusively established not only the historical existence of the author of the Śabdānuśāsana but his exact date. The Śākatāyana who wrote the Śab­ dānuśāsana also wrotc the Amoghavritti, tvliich was w ritten2 in the time of Amoghavarslia I, the great Rāshtraknta king whose knorvn epigraphic datēs range from A. D. 817—877.
53. Character of th% Śākaṭāyaaa Śabdānuśāsana.—Besides the older grammarians such as Pāņini, Kātyāyana, Patañjali, and Chandragomin, Śākatāyana lias freely drawn upon the work of Pñjyapāda the author of the Jainendravyākaraņa. Many sātras of Śākatāyana are identical with those of Pāņini,- and in cases where they differ the object has been to say in shorter and fewer \vords what
1 Carefully but often inaccmately: Thus in sutras iii. 4. 111 and 112, Pāņini tells us that the Imperf. 3rd perB. plu. of *ṛr is on!y according to Śākatāyana, but not so in his own opinion. This e^tablishes fitvṛrTT- Now the modern Śākaṭāyana also rnakes the rule optional and allows botli forms in his sntra l This is wkat Pāņini teachea, and not what Pāņini represents Śākatāyana to have taught; 3 2 The most concluaive proof for this is the use of the instance to illus trate the use of the iinperfect (sutra Iv. 3. 207) to deseribe a \velI-known past event which tho writer might have personully witno«sed but did not. There is inscriptioual evidence to prove that tho event in question took place short!y before Śaka 789 or A. D. 867 (see Ep. Ind. vol. i, p. 54, Ind. Ant. vol. xii, p. 181). E. g. Pāņini’s i. 3. 11, ii. 1. 1, viii. 4. 40, &c.

Systtms o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 53 “ ]

was already intended by Pāņini.1 Most of the new matter.is taken, from Chandragomin2 (without acknowledgment of course) and where he has improved upon Chandragomfn, the improvement was already suggested by the Jainendra sñtras,* independently of which there is hardly anything new that we can put to his credit .* In his sñtra i. 2.37 Šākatāyana seeras to quote Indra who probably is to be identified with P 5jyapāda, the founder of the Jainendra school. The Sākatāyana Śabdānuśasana consists of four adhyāyas of four pādas each, the total number of sñtras being about 3,200. The arrangement of topics is similar to that of later Kaumudīs. ' He gives thirteen īrnmnrtprs and following the suggestion of Kātyāyana has omitted from them the vowel and assigued therein a place to the «nffrmfs. He d5S?not, of ccṭurse, treat of the Vedic grammar. His ingenuity is mainly confined to economising the \vording of the sñtras. Except in three8 cases, he has invariably substituted the monosyllabie wherever Pāņini had used or 3ṛrir?TTW P9 ( or had quoted the name of some ancient authority. The most striking instance, of this tendency is given perhaps by
1 E-g. srn t f ffrernfrrr gives ç v r v w tm r r A (iii 4. of Pāņini (i. 1. 71). 143), and 80 also doea Śāk&fā 2 Instead of PSņini’H iv. 4. £9, ytuia. The like hold» trne of V T > Chandrft gives tftPāņini’a ii. 1 18, ii. 3. 34, ftuntraftl «o also dces <ic. Śffkaṭāyana. 5 Namely Śirkatāyana sūtras ii. 1. 3 ls giving Chandragomin’i im 229, i, 2 . 13, i. 2. 37 (corresprovement M * ļ.onding to Pāņini’s v. 4. 154, o n P tṇini’a ir o f f : (v. 1. 126) vii. 1. 79, and vii. 2. 101 ś&katāySna e c o n o i u is e s one reapeotively), where Ś f ik a tS » y l labie by giving the « litr a a s y a n a quotes a*T $W , t berein imitatand fejj. Whether, these three ing Pñjyapāda. n a m e s a re m e re ly or 4 For Pāṇini’s fṣerrernft (v. 2. there were before him gram133), Chandra gives .funparmarians o f that name cannot termt (iv- 2 . 130), Jainendra be determined.

[ - § 55

ŚikatUyana School: Later lii$tory


Pāņini’s sūtra v. 2,128, which runs H>ķi't«tTlBlyqTl% i$-t Chandra changed this into *n*f( =fff) ñn( =T3WW )»ifiw nmSJmr, where tbe substantial change is the addition of the qualifying clause Śākatiyana says just what Chandra said, but instead of puts a form which is shorter by full two syllables—e8ļfir*ai. In his technical terrainology also he has often taken up Chāndra words in preferencc to Pāņini’s wherever the former were shorter. Thus he has used and am ç instead o£ f^mr, *r^TT*ry, an?*r^r and «rtfita* of Pāņini. 54. Other works of the Ślkiṭiymna school.— Besides the Śabdinuśāsana and the Amoghavritti Śākatāyana is credited with the authorship of i. Paribhāshā-sūtras, ii. Gaņapātha in sixteen pādas, iii. Dhātupātha, iv. Uņādi-sūtras in four pādas, and v. Liñgānuśāsana in seventy āryā stanzas. Of these none is older thau tbe corresponding Piņin!ya treatise. One expects to find in the Uņādi-sūtras at least traces of the ancient Śākatāyana and his works, but he is sure to be disappointed in his expectations. The other treatises also do not call for any special notice. Hemachandra based his own Liñgānuśāsana on that of Sākatāyana, of which, in fact, it is only an enlarged edition. 55. Later hlstory of the ślkaṭiyana school.— The later history of the Śākatiyana school—as is the case wjth almost every grammatical school—is 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 Sākatāyana Śabdānuśāsana the most noted are i. a Nyāta quoted in the Mādhavīya Dhātuvritti. Probably this is
1 The Ms. in the Jain Maṭha a f ŚrSraņa Belgota is not, as reported, a Me. of the Śskaṭsyana NvSsa ; it is a Ms. of Jinendrabuddhi’s KnśikBviva" rsņspsñjikS, and an ahuost complete Ms- for that, written in Canerese cbaraoters. See before, note 1 on paga 39.


Systems o f Sanskrit farammar

§ 55 - ]

no other than the Nyāsa by Prabhāchandrāchārya, which is in the nature of a comraentary on the Amoghavntti.1 And ii. a comraentary called Chintāmaņi by Vakshavarman. This vvas throughout based upon the Amoghavntti and lays 110 claim to originality.2 Nevertheless it has been honoured by many sub-commentaries such as the Maņiprakāśikā by Ajitasenāchārya, Chintāmaņipratipada by Mañgarasa, and a Tippaņī by Samantabhadra. Besides regular commentaries there. have been produced at least two or three recasts-of the Sākatāyana grammar. The best of them is the Prakriyāsañgraha by Abhayacliandrāchāryā, published ut Kolhapur, 1907, Abhayachandra’s date £ollows from that of his pupil Keśavavarņi who in Saka 1281 (=A. D. 1359) \vrote a Sanskrit conunentarv 011 Gomatasāra, a philosophical work in Prākrit. 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 sčitras, \vhich \vere unnecessary in a \vork for beginners, and amplified a few others. His arrangement is closely modelled upon works like the Prakriyākaumudī. Another aud a stili shorter abridgment of the Sākat,āyana grammar is the Rūpasiddhi by I)ayāpāla, pupil of Matisāgara and a fellorv-student of Vādirāja alias Jayasirhha II, tbe Chālukya einperor who was reigning in Saka 947 (=A . D. 1025).’ The work is somewhat similar in scope to the Laghukauniudl.



Am oghuvvilli,

prove the dopendenco o f this


Šākat5;yana’s own couimentury commeiitary on tho Amogbaon his sñtras, see Professor vritti are given by Professor Pūthak’s paper (Ind. Ant. for Pathak, loc. pit. Ootober 1914). 3 For these facts I am indebted to Compare—erwfS*wff $Ķ Professor Pāthnk’s paper in tholud. Ant, for Od. 1914.

Extracts to

[ - § 57

The Hemachandra School


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

The Hemachandra School
56. The Hemachandra School The last, but not on that account the least, of these sectarian schools that we have to notice is the one wUich is knovvn under the name of its founder, the Jain monk •Hemachandra. About Hema­ chandra and his times we know a good deal more than what \ve did regarding the founders of the other schools hitherto described. The biographical material regarding Hemachandra has been brought to a focus in Dr. Buhler’s German pamphlet* entitled 'Ueber das Leben des Jaina Monches Hemachandra/ Wien, 1889. 57. Life of Hemachandra.— Hemachandra was born on the full-moon night of the month of Kārttika 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 Chāñgadeva. The mother was a
1 That Ś5kaṭSyana was ŚvetSmbara Jain is proveḍ by the n u m e ro u s references to the &va4yaka-s>ūtra,Chheda-sūtra, Niryukti, Kālikā-sūtra, and other Ś v etS n ab ara works found in the Amoghavritti. 2 Besides the ffṣifļfrs founḍ in Hemaebanḍra’s writings thia work is based upon U H TV 9Tby and (1250 A. D .), by (1305-6 A. d .), by m r ṣ i H ṛ (1348-9 a .D .), and b y fk ’Tm'S’T ('1435-6 a . d )
’v f k s r

io [ Sk. Gr. ]


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 57 ~ ]

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

[ - § 5*

llmachandra: īīis Work


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

Hemachandra’s grammar (th e

full title of \vhich is

work, of eight adhyāyas of four pādas each, the total number of sūtras being about 4,500. Of these nearly a
1 A cortain ooraraentator eiplain» tbe flrit pert of the title tbu»— «rftflKfRṭ f i n p ṛ 1

yww ilṭ l uufeļ ^ i


Syslems o f Sanskrit Grammar

5 58


fourth part of sūtras is given by the last adhyāya alone, which deals exclusively with the Prākrit languages which were now in their most flourishing condition. In the remaining adhyāyas the arrangement of subjects is natūrai, only slightly differing from that of the Kaumudīs. Hemachandra's object in writing a new grammar for the benefit of his illustrious patron was to say in the shortest possible manner not only ali that his predecessors had said upon the subject, but everything that could be said. Accordingly he has drawn freely upon the urorks of ali the grammarians and commentators that had gone before him : indeed in some cases—especially in regard to Śākatāyana's Śabdāmdāsana and the Amoghavritti—his dependence is so close as to amount to almost slavish imitation.1 Hemachandra wrote a commentary on his own sūtras called Śabdānuśāsana-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*:,ļ?r8ra.etc.— for approval in some cases and refutation in most others. A commentary called NySsa on this Brihadvritti identifies a large number of these quotations* and if properly edited along with Hemachandra’s Brihad1 Some typical instances ■ vvill be 2 These are t f s ļ ihfh^, fonnd collected by Professor TVmTV, mwf&, orarrVSf, WT% Pathak in the Indian Antit o t , ļ flTa n sft, vjpftffcn quary for Ootober 1914, page *rr 209. That Hemachandra doee çrertV, «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 tṛft irii^ srr \ṛṛ, |p tW i eud (Pffņini ii. 1.18), which Śttkamany others. The TVntVPT is ṭByana gives as «rft probahly fcmnr, while ( s t ) , while Hemachani s probably the same person dra givee as c ft r who is quoted in the AmogbaVS’S T Tf t i vritti at iv . 1. 252-3.


Acce$sory Treatises


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 praśasti, has added a stanza in praise of his patron and his family. They are ali given together in a note to Dr..Biihler’s 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 Śabdānuśāsana is also attributed to Heraa* chandra, and may probably have been \vritten with his concurrence. It is a mere patchwork, containing nothing new or original. Mss. of it date as far back as cir. 1350 A. D., and one old palm leaf Ms. calls it, instead of Śabdānuśāsana, Laghuvritti-ŚabdSnuśāsana-Rahasya. To illustrate the rules of his grammar, Hemachandra has composed a poem, resembling the Bhattik 5 vya, which is known as Dvy3śraya-mahākāvya.
59. Treatises accessory to HemactaanOra’s Śabdlnuślaana.— It

is not necessary to describe in fuller details the treatises accessory to Hemachandra’s Śabdānuśāsana. These a re : i. Haima-Dhātupātha, which is arranged for the most part like the corresponding treatise of PSņini; ii. UņSdisntras, numbering a little over 960; iii. LiSgānuśfsana, a metrical treatise, being an enlargement of the Śākatāyana Liñgānuśāsana and divided into eight sections; 1 iv. GaņapStha; v. A collection of Paribhāsbis; and some others. For the most part these treatises are embodied in Hemachandra’s Brihadvritti, from which they seem to have been subsequently extracted and published in a separate form. It is doubtful whether the vivaraņas or vrittis which are given in Mss. of the LiBgi* nuiSsana or of the Uņādisūtras do really come from
1 Nameiy—


Spstems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 59 - ]

Hemachandra. Here, as in most of the commentaries on the č>abdānuśasana, the colophons of the original work are mistaken for those of the commentaries themselves.
60. Commentarios on Hemacbandra’s iobOlnuŚBuna.—The most iraportant and extensive of these commentaries or rather sub-commentaries is the Bnhadvntti-dhuņdhikg. No complete Ms. of this work has been hitherto discovered, the lon^est estending only upto the ñfth adhyāya. The Mss. miijifferently call it tf'farr, s r r f ṛ , and ļrStvr. Its authorship also is equally uncertain. Many Mss. and reports ascribe it to Hemachandra, which is very probably a mistake. A Ms.1 from the Deccan College collection, which contains the commentary on adhySyas vi. and vii, is stated to have been the work of Dhauachandra. Another2 Ms. of the Dhuņdhikā purports to be the work of Jinasāgara, 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 Dhuņdhikā and consequently there may have been two separate authors. Whether each wrote a commentary on ali the seven adhyāyas or only on portions from them it is perhaps impossible to decide. The Dhuņdhikā on the eighth or tho Prākrit chapter 1s the work of UdayasaubhSgya, pupil of H&rshakula of the Laghutapāgachchha. It was vṛritten in 1533 A. D. during the reign of Bahadur Shah of Gujarat (1525-1537). The object of a Dhuņdhikā is to take the various sūtras of the Śabdānuśāsana 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 sūtras. Another very useful commentary on the Brihadvritti is by Devendrasūri, pupil of Udayachandra of the Chān1 No. 10 o f 1877-78.
3 No. 119 of 1869-70,

L - { 6i

blgests, Hanmls, «tc.

dragachchlia. It is called HaimalaghunySsa and purports to be an abridgmeut#of a larger Nvāsa 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 Śabdaraahārņāvany5 sa. There do not seem to be existing any more commentaries .vorth the.name. 01, Dlgests and manuais and other mtsceifanenaa worke.— Smaller manuais based on Hemachandra's Śabdānuśāsana have also come down to us, the most famous by far being the Hairaa-laghuprakriyā by Vinayavijayagaņi, pupil of Kīrtivijayagaņi. It was composed in Samvat 1710= r652 A. D.2 A commentary on it called Hairaa-prakāśa was also written by the author some twenty-five years later.3 A second digest referred to above,1 called Haimakaumudī alias Chandraprabhā, 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 (Deśapati) tvere provided with quarters for the rainy scason in the palace of Agarāvara.'” This tvork is said to have been the modei for the Siddhāntakaumudī. The facts raay have been just otherwise. Of lesser lights we have i. Puņyasundaragaui who arranged for the school the different Sanskrit roots in their alphabetical order giving after each root its meanļng, gana, and other conjugationalpeculiarities; ii. Srīvallabhavāchanāchārya who wrotein Samvati 6 < 5i ,
1 Compare tbe folloving gtanzas from tha Praśagti:— . jfṭ irfjfbvSlSJtST 3 Compatei #

natvr-1 dimuļium« wwī«$4ii ^ s «rur^l « im u iru ç ļ ṛ t nrfbfl- Sñāpnr. « 2 Compare .

vramšt v*^i imttaf *
4 Seo before, page 46, note 3. 5 reteraon’e Beport iii, page 10.


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

6i § - ]

during tbe reign of Sñrasimha alias Siwairāj of Jodhapur, 1594-1619 A. D, a commentary called Dargapadaprabodba on Hemachandra’s Liñgānuśāsana;1 iii. Hemahaihsāvijayagaņi wbo put together a collection of about 140 Paribhā­ shās or maxims of interpretation used in Hemachandra’s grammar, and wrote a commentary on them called Nyāyārthamafij0shā, in Sarhvat i 5 i s s or A. D. 1457 at Ahmedabad; iv. Amarachandra, a pupil of Jinadattasūri of the Vāyadagachchba, who lived about the middle of the thirteenth century and wrote a work, called Syādisamuchchya, on declensions and their irregularities; and v. Guņaratnasnri who wrote a work, called Kriyāratnasamuchchaya, on the use and čonjugational peculiarities of the more important Sanskrit roots. He was the pupil of Devasundarasūri and wrote this work in Samvat 1466 (=A . D. 1408).3 At the end of his work, in nearly 80 stanzas, he gives a succession of spiritual preceptors which is of considerable historical importance.
62. Conduslon of the Hemachandra achool.—Hemachandra was a prolific writer. In nearly every branch of litera­ ture which he touched he has left one'or more important works behind him. The school of grammar which he founded was not, however, destined to have a very long and even career of popularity. After the age of cothmentators which had its fullest swing in the fifteenth century, the work fell more or less into neglect, perhaps for lack of originality but more probably because of the sectarian character of its founder and followers. Outside its circle it has not exerted much influence, while in its own circle it had to stand against two predecessors, Jainen­ dra and Śākatāyana, and at least one successor, Malayagiri


(? ^ 5»ṛ) 1jnsvrmrStf


1 ñrfftitsil&c,

[ - § 63

The KHiantra School


who wrote a Śabdānuśāsana of his own and composeda coram entarj on it durirrg the life-time of Hemachandra him­ self, if we are to trust the evidence furnished by the in­ stance m i< a.• given in the commentary.1 This would make Malayagiri flourish betw€*en A. D. 1143 and 1174. Malayagin, unlike Hemachandra. usedpratyāhāras and foliowed on the lines of the Kāiautra as well as Śākatāyana. 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 Prākrit chapter of Hemchandra’s Śabdānuśāsana and its subsequent history — for, it had an independent developraent of its own—we need not discuss it in this place as it is beyond the proper province of our essay, which is limited only to the Sanskrit schools of grammar. From these sectarian schools of grammar we shall now tura to schools which are rather cosmopolitan in character, being designed raainly to appeal to the masses —to schools whose*object was to say just what is sufficient for a proper understanding of the language, to which grammar was considered, and justly considered, as only ancillory—to schools, namely, which go by the names of the Kātantra, and the Sārasvata.

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

11 [Sk.Cr.]


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 63 - ]

Vyākhyāuaprakriyā' which says that this grammar fras priin,irily designed for the use of— 3T ^ r : īr 1 Ib^rr vnf¥%HTHd«rTētHrf?HS0r ^ n <fl4;<ranfcs %mr--1 ttrr %rr jrsfrvrrcbt— \Vober in his history of Indian Literature p. 227 notēs that this grammar was raeant for those who wished to approach Sanskrit through Prākrit, and that the Pāli gram­ mar of Kachchāyana tvas based upon the Kātantra. 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 Prātiśākhyas and other Aindra treatises. AU accounts thus agree in stating that the Kātantra grammar was not the creation of a school, but was rather meant to satisly a real popular n eed; and lookiug to the intrinsic merits of the vork itself, as also to the host of commentators that have been attracted towards it, it is clear that the work must have 9erved its purpose pretty well, at least for a time.
64. Traditional account about Śarvavarman, tbe founder of

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

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

Anḍhra King of that nams mentioned on p. 208 of V. A. Smith’s Early Hi»tory of India, third edition, pnblished in 1914? In tbat caae the beginning of tbe Kātantra will hate to be pnt in the ftxvt oentnry of the Chrietian era

[ - § 65

Traditiom l Origin o/KUtantra


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 Śarvavarman1 to devise a speedy method of learning grammar. The Pandit in his difficulty besought God Śiva who ordered his son Kārttikeya or Kumāra to accede to his wishcs. Accordingly, Kumāra revealed the sñtras of the Kaumāra grammar. As the God’s vehicle, the bird Kalāpin (peacocK), vas tlie iustrument of communication, the sūtras also obtained their other name. This tradition—like most others of its kiud —has probably a germ of truth. The date of the rise of this school as given by the tradition is not at ali inconsistent vrith other ascertained facts. Thus Durgasimha the earliest known coromentator on this granrmar cannot as we shall presently see, be later than 800 A. D., and when vre consider that he may not have been the first commentator on the Kātantra, and that, at any rāte, the Sñtrapātha known to him cannot be neeessarilv identical vrith that vrhich was original, seeing that considerable difEerences are observable betvreen his Sñtrapātha and that current, for instance, in Kāśmir 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.

Evldence tor later Interpolattons In the Kātantra Sūtra

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

vw r>
ta vmtmmm* te

(arnpjr*) tmr sreaHttpN («Nf*)»nd [fžnnwTi
Sni* 0i tfc*

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


Syttems of Sanskrit Grammar

$ 65 - ]

fUHUHirm—Oonaigṭing of f*TTHT (fltļf*) < T T tf» SUāSfSTOI-

Ttr» *n%<nT*> 5**rmr- v rm n r, mmrmr* > .
iii. ?n% mrnr, and [ç fh rn n m r]. of JTētPTn?*, 4 U?m(ĪM<Hu[—Oonsiating

itHspn<r*> tu-u^ontr^ , j o t ?, a r f ^ n r , f gNHTTĪT*» and gum*.
iv. g fT O Jt-C o n g istin g of ftrf&TTOr*. V ī ^ lļ », āTSļPTT?*. [jOin ^ TT^l and Vṛ^r^JfVpnT*-

In this connection the tirst question to be raised is : Does the fourth part—the ^fsrgrmr—belong to the author­ ship of Sarvavarman himself, or was it only tacked on to his work by a later hand ? Most coramentators, including Durgasimha, note that the word f%rv^ which begins the tirst section of this prakaraņa is *rpH«r. A mañgala it is true, may come at the beginning of the work as a whole or in the body of it : before coraraencing the various subdivisions of it. In this particular case Durgasirhha tells us Sfor He elsewhere tells us that the ^Tsrerror is the work of Kātyāyana.] Jogarāja the author of a work called the Pādaprakarnasañgatiand piobably the same person who is alluded to by Mañkha (circa 1135-45 A. I).) in his Śrīkaņtha-charita, agrees in not assigning the ^rUī-TH to the authorship of Sarvavarman ; only he makes Śākatāyana their author. Lastly, Raghunandanaśiromaçi, the author of a cominen. tary3 on the Durgasiriiha-vritti, credits Vararuchi with the authorship of the prakarņa in question— snhnhrr
•Otra* commeucing the vanou» gectiong. Alternatīvs name* are encloaeḍ within circular bracketa. See note 2 on page 27 before. fehia *r*rk givta a to picai an» lygig of tbe Kstantru-sūtia. It is printed in Apptndis 2 011 the basia of the Deeean College Ma. 292 of 1875-76. .1 A Ma. of the work is no. 853 of Notioaa, Seoc*d 8«i«i.

1 8

[ - $ 65 Interpolation» in KUtantra-Sitraplitha


sfm1twr: 1 iTsstf sgmf^rr: irtftfosoOrtḍniu rf ^īf^TRnrsnr 1fSļTrfŠ^Rñllfit 1 Whoever be the real author, it is clear that the is a later addition to the original sūtrapātha. Another clear case of later interpolations m the Kātantra sūtrapātha is furnished by the three sections in roctangular brackets— sfhTfWrīļ’, and duuf^Mm— which are absent in Durgasiihh&’s commentary but which are regularly found included in the KāśmT rian sūtrapāthav And even in the sections which are comraon to both these there are so many variant readings3 that we are probably justified in inferring that the Kātantra sntra­ pātha was in a very unsettled and changeable form when it reached Kāśmir—probably long before it found an expositor in Durgasiniha. Finally,the ?rferiVšr? belonging to the secondprakaraņa seems likewise to be not of the authorship of Śarvavarman. The sūtras in this section (like those in the ^TTUHnmT as given by the Kāśmirian tradition) naturally arrange themselves into anushtubh stanzas ; and although some sūtras here and there from this section have been in Professor Eggeling’s edition of the Kātantra printed as such stanzas, stili this general fact has not yet received sufficient attention. The inference is obvious. If Śarvavarman did not think it necessary to teach the section to his Royal
1 Vararuchi is often an alias of KātySyana. The India office Ms. no. 855 purports to be Vararuchi’s com. on his own which «re inst these Sfitras Ontside Kāśmir the place ol these sections is taken up by a Liñgānuśāsana in 86 Sryās, attributed to Durgitma, who is prot»bly net tbt same pe» mn as Durgnsimba ; and by an Uņādipāṭha put together by Durgaaimha himself. This latter work dilfers consider %bly from the grorrfg^fg i»' cluded in the regular Kiśmīrian siitrapStha. 3 A few such are collected in Dr. Bfihler’s report for 1875*76, page cxxxiv



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 affcļr section formed for the king a harder nut to crack than, for instance, the arnHna section, there was no apparent need for Sarvavarman’s running into poetry aud that for one or two sections only. The facts may have been these : A manual which made the king proficient in grammar in a few months’ time must have attracted the early notice of the courtiers and subjects of the king. The omission of and other sections may then have been noticed and rectified—either by the origi­ nal author or soine other scholar. And the impetus to such additions being once given, the Kātantra from being a mere handbook issued fortb into a full-blown system. 66. Nature oi śarvavarmao’s worlr.— The nature of the im­ provements made by Śarvavarman on the current textbooks of grammar is evident even from that portion of the Kātantra which we have no hesitation in accepting as his own genuine work. These consist in i. dispensing vrith the artificial arrangement of the letters of the alphabet introduced by Pāņini, and retaining in their stead their natūrai arrangement such as is found in the Prātiśākhyas.' ii. AsaconsquencethePāņinīyapratyāhāras, which result in brevity as well as unintelligibility, are dispensed with, their place being taken by the earlier and simpler Safijñās such as sussīr, hhth etc. This has saved the system the defining sūtras, of which there is such a number in Pāņini. iii. In the distribution of the subject matter, in preference to the old artificial arrangement of Pāņini there has been adopted one which is natūrai or topical, similar to that of the later Kaumudīs. iv. Lastly, as was essential in a work designed for beginners, the
1 The first «titra of the Kātantra-

[ — § 68

KUtantra School : Early Historv


whole o£ the Vaidikī prakriyā of Pāņini and ali the other rules of an exceptional or difficult character have been simply omitted. Thus instead of the nearly 4000 sātras of Pāņini, Śarvavarman could finish his work in about 855 sātras, or including the section, 1400 sātras only.
67. Barly hlstrry ol the Kātantra 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 Kāśmīr 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 this’school 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 Sūtrapātba of Śarvavarman experienced, in the course of the next two or three centuries, the addition of the afijtī and çftr?tnr TT^s, and the substantial assimilation with Sāktāyana’s or Vararuchi’s 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 vṛltti.—^Vhether Durgasiiirha had any predecessors in the task of expounding the Kātantra cannot now be ascertained. His was probably the first systematic attempt where necessary to ezplain and amplify 1 the Kātantra grammar so as to make it as thorough-


8y means of giviag vSrtika»,
(oma of wMcb later comtne,::teters have inaorporeted with

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

Sļtsttms o f Sanskrit Grammar


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 Chāndra Dhātupātha, on the basis of which he put together another Dhātupātha for the Kātantra, Durgasimha probably is to be assigned to the eighth century. As the verse introducto ry ’ to his Uņādisūtras contains an invocation to God Śiva, Durgasimha probably was not a Bauddha, and if so, he is distinct from another Durgasimha, the author of a commentary on Durgasiriiha’s vritti, whose invocation2 points unmistakably to his faith. Durgasimha is also to be distinguished from later writers such as Durga, Durgātma, and Durgāchārya. ' 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 Liñgānuśāsana to the Kātantra (see note 2 on page 85). Conunentsrles on Durgaslṁha’s vṛltti. •Writers subsequent to Durgasimha have raainly confined themselves to writing commentaries on his masterlv vritti. The earliest of these is the Kātāntravistara by Vardhamāna,* whose patron was Karņadeva, who probably is the same who ruled Gujarat in A. D. 1088. Vardhamāna is ofteu quoted by Bopadeva in his Kāvyakāmadhenu. A writer called Mahāmahopādhyāya Prithvīdharā wrote a subcommentary on Vardhamāna’s work.
j u im<Tt 1 or^1II It has a ring o f that fa ith a lio u t it. The other a» we saw whh



4 Goldetuckei uelieved biru tu be

Tbia Durga at} Ies Durgasiīnlm
at vnrw n ļ


the aame aa tbe authoi Gaņ&ratnamabodadhi,

cd th<*

Eggeling’s N otēs, p. 465
3 One of them mu y hare been «

ocmposed (
ṇrç ṣiftartfftg ) in 1139-40
a. d.

; compāre the v e r s e

[ —§ 7°

'treatises Acccssory to Kntantra


The next in succession comes Trilochanadāsa,1 who is also cited by Bopadeva and by v itthala the commcntator on the Sārasvata. He may have oome very soon after Vardhamāna. His commentary is called Kātantravrittipañjikā, and from it vve learn that the author was a Kāyastha, the son of Megha and father to Gadādhara. Trilochanadāsa has been himself commented upon by Jinaprabhasūri alias Jinaprabodha,5 by Kuśala, by Rāmachandra, and by other more modern vrriters. Mahādeva, the author of a commentary called Sabdasiddhi, a Ms.3 of which bears the date Samvat 1340, is chronologically the next writer whom we ha vc to notice. As, however, there is very little known about him either from his own \vorks or from those of others, we shall pass on to later writers. Of these vve have already alluded to Durga or Durgātma, author of a commentary on Durgasrirha’s vritti, who has often been confounded with Durgasimha himself. An anonyraous writer has vvritten a Dhuņdhikā on the Kātantravritti, probably modelled upon asimilarly namcd commentarv on Hemachandra’s Sabdānuśāsana. No other commentaries on the Kātantra that could be definitely assigned to a period anterior to 1500 A. D., are now extant. See, however, §72.
70. Treatises accessory to the K ātantra.—We have already incidentally spoken above of the treatises accessory to Kātantra. There are not many of them, and the majority o£ them are much later productions. The earlier ones are the Liñgānuśāsana in 88 āryās by Durga, and the 1 He is not to be identified with the author of that name who wrote the Kātantrottarapariśishta to iŚrlpalidatta’s supplement. 2 For particulars about Jinapra12 [ Sk. Gr. ] bodha see Peterson’s Report for 1896-92, Indes ; and Kielhorn’s report for 1880-81, Mss. noa. 85 and 36. 3 Ms. no. 00 of Dr. KiclhoiU B colleotion for 1880-81.


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 76 - j

Uņādipātlm and the Dhātupātha by Durgasimha the author of the vritti. The Dhātupātha is modeiled upon that of Chandragomin, evitli only slight modifications. The genuine Kālāpa-Dhātusātra, which differs considerably from the above, is no\v reported to exist only in a Tibetiau translation. 71. H istory of the Kātantra school In Bengal.—No definite information exists as to whcn the Kātantra was introduced into Bengal. In the fiftcenth and sixtcenth centuries there arose in Bengal a host of commentators and writers of supplements to the Kātantra, and the grammar is there to this day most assiduously studied. Some of the most fanious of these Bengali evriters are : i. Kavirāja who tļuotes Trilochanadāsa and is quoted by H arirām a; ii. Kulachandra who is quotcd by Rāmadāsa ; Goplnātha Tarkāchārya who is commented upon hy Rāinachandra who also ṛvrote a commentary on the Kātantravrittipañjikā ; iii. Srīputi who wrote a supplement to tlie Kātan­ tra tvbich is honourcd \viih commentaries \vrittcn by Gopinātlia Tarkāchārya, Rāraachandra Chakravarti, Sivarāma Chakravarti, and Puņdarīkāksha ; iv. Trilocbana (not the older Trilochanadāsa) wlio rvrote an Uttarapariśishta, giviug therein such information on vttśj, aud mm r as had escaped Srīpati ; and several others, Most of these \vriters came from the Vaidya commuuity of Bengal, aud tlieir object in ali cases has been, by pārtini or \\’holesale borrotving from ali availablc sources, to make the Kātantift 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 Pāņini under the auspices of the Kaumudīkāras, 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 Kātantra is coiifrned to onlv a few distriets of Bengal.

C- § 73

Sārasvata School


In k ā ś m īr the school had a slightly varied development. The Sūtrapatha received there was, as \ve saw, considerably different from that known to Durgaśimha ; and we can hence conclude that the Kāśmirian Pundits got faiuiliar with the works of Durgasimha much later. U nl.il then they busied themselvea with \vriting original comraentaries and digests on the Kātantra mhich, as Dr. Biihler observes, has been the grammar of the Kāśmirians 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 Bāiabodhinī by Bhatta Jagaddhani tvith a Myāsu upon it by a \vriter called Ugrubhīiti, who, if identical vvith his name-sake who was a teacher of grammar to Ānandapala and \vhose book (as Alberñnī says) \vas uiada fashionahle in Kāśmīr 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 modēm popular books of grammar in- Kāśmīr are based on the Kātantra.
Hlstory of Ihe Kātantra school In KSsmlr

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


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 73 - ]

nowhere refers to the Sārasvata school. If the school existed in his days—if it had attained a sufficient standing in the eyes of scholars—we sliould naturally expect Bopadeva to mention it, just as he does many other established schools and authors. Nor does the school appear to have been known to Hemachandra. Further, none of the commentaries on the Sārasvata belongs to a date earlier than 1450 A. D., and the majority of them were w ritten in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Looking to the native places of the different commenta; tors and the places where the Mss. were copied or discovered, it has to be admitted that the influence of the school, even in the most glorious period or its existence, was mostly limited to Northern India : to Gujarat, Nagapur, Udepur, Bikaner, Delhi and Bengal. The school continued in vigour down to the modern revival of Pāņini under the auspices of Bhattoji Dīkshita 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 Sārasvata school vvas proliably the last to go. These facts when taken in conjunction with the extremely simple and brief manner in which the Sārasvata treats its entire subject—700 sñtras1 as against the 4,000
Sevcn hundred sūtras— i . e., in the original sūtrupātha of the schcol. This ussertion is made on the basis of the Deccan Gollege Ms. no, 239 of 1892-95» which gives 597 mūlasīdras plus 91 more vartikās or mktavyasy thUB reaching the to tai of 658. The original order of tbe sūtras seems to be preserved in this Ms. alone ; other Mas. usual!y follow the order of Anubhūtisvarūp&chārya in bis Sfirasvata~prakriyā. Thus in two Mss. of the Deccan Gollege C o lle c t io n ( n o . 257 of 189598 and no. 210 of A. 1882-83) the total number of sūtras is near!y 890, includiDg some sūtras whieh occur twice and some vSrt ikas distinctly given b}' Anubhūtisvarūpachūrya as such. We have in fact to d istiD gu ish clearly between the Sārasvata-mūlasūtrapatha and tbe Ssrasvataprakriyūsūtrapūfha.

[ - § 74

Special Featvres o f Sčlrasz'Gtc


of Pāņini—render plausible the inference that the Sāras­ vata school, like the Kātantra, arose in response to a defi­ nite demand. This time the demand probably came from the Muhammedan rulers of India tvho felt it necessary to promote the study of Sanskrit, wers it only for the purpose of criticising works written in that language. Thus Gaisuddin Khilgi the pe&ceful and enlightened ruler of Mālva, Salemsliah (1555 to 1556) the emperor who ruled Dclhi during Humayun’s \vanderings, and Jahangir, the Conqueror of the rvorld—ali these alike encouraged the study of the Sārasvata grammar as being the one calculated to producē 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 Sārasvata 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 Sārasvata.—These special fea­ tures are not very far to seek ; and prominent amongst them is brevity of treatment. When we remember that schools like those of Jainendra and Bopadeva, whose avowed object was to curtail and improve upon Pāņini as far as practicable, could not conveniently treat of their s u b je c t in less than 3000 and 1200 sātras respectively ; or that the school which in current opinion was labelled the short school—Kātantra—has more than 1400 sātras,
1 It is necessary to emphasise this in order to eounteract the tendency to look upon the Islam as a purely destruetive foree. The instance before us is on!y one out of many.


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 74 - ]

it was certainly au achievemcnt for the Sārasvata gram­ mar to corapass the whole subject in 700 aphorisms only. More important than brevity is simplicity ; and in this respect also the Sārasvata compares £avourably ṭvith its predecessors. The Sārasvata uses pratyāhāras 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 Pāņini’s = 5 rt[ fails to do, except to the initiate, The other technicalities ndopted by the Sarasvata are of tlie sitnplest kiud and are such that the meaning is evident from the word itself (trrur, tfvTžļṭr ete.), or is established by the coucensus of grammarians (rtr% ?T> ® rn?trīčT, HHTHrrnr, HH, smrrR, ^crvrT, etc.). Accordingly, the Sārasvata very rarely goes out of its way to explain its Sañjñās and thus, without sacrificing siraplicity, gaius enormously in economy. The order followed is, of course, the natūrai or the topical one. The language of the sñtras is easy, and in their interpretation we have not to follovv the guidance of any paribhhāshās. No book 011 paribhāshās has corae down to us in connection \vith this school. This has been made possible, oE course, by a studied avoidance of ali difficult and out-of-the-way forms, the object being to learn grammar not for its o\vn sake but as a medium for the study of literature. The Vedic irregularities and accents are left out, as also any detailed consideration of the Uņādis. Sometimes this process was carried too far and then later it was found necessary to insert vārtikas such as «T * or *nrror again vimn: where it was discovered that even some of the commoner forms of words remained unnoticed.

t - § 75

traditional Fcundcr o f Sārasvata

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

Hfrnrnr r%%rT ernr favr 1 1 A granimarian Narendrāchārya is also quoted by Vit.thalāchārya in his rrakriyākuumudīprasāda. Although as a result of these conflicling facts wc are not justilied in throwiug any doubt upon the historical existencc of Anubhntisvarāpāchārva, stili \ve must admit that he is no more than a name for us, and to set against hira we have another—Narendra or Narendrāchārya—who must have written some original tvork on the Sārasvata, 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 ṛvriters; aud such wc might

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 75 - ]

assume was the person who, in response to a felt demand, produced the Sārasvatasutras, and thus made it possible even-'for the foreign rulers of India to g e tan insight into Sanskrit literature.
76- The Sārasvata-prakrlyā o( A oubhūtlsvanīpāchirja —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 Anubatisvarñpāchārya the author of the Sārasvataprakriyā. 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 Sārasvatasntras that he found it necessary to rearrange (^t"ģ §>$). the whole matter for logical presentation. Anubhiitisvarāpachārya could not have lived earlier than 1250 and later than 1450, when Puñjarāja the earliest of his kuovvn comtnentators lived. When the sūtras once rcceived a stereo-typed form at the hands of Anubhūtisvarnpa, the future historv of this school is mainly one of commcntaries and sul)-commentaries ; and the fact that vcry few o£ the commentators—aud they are over fiftecn in the course of about 175 years—make any really original contribution, but confiue themselves merely to an explanation more or less accurate, only means that the grammar was meant for practical purposes only. Tlint there should have arisen so many conimentators at ali is to be explaincd 011 the ground that the several local Pandits felt it necessary, in vindication of their scholarship, to write for their patrons fresh commentaries rather than take up those already existing. shall now give short noticēs of these commentators one by one.
* 77. Commentators on the Sārasvata-prakrlyS.— We

belonged to the Śrīmāla £araily of Malabar tvhich some time or other settled in Mālva. He


t “ i 77

Commentaton on Sñrasvcia-prakriyā


gives his āncestry in the praśasti at the end of his commentary, from which we learn thṅt he was a minister to Gaisudin Khiiji of Mālva (1469-1500). Puñjarāja 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 alañkāra called Śiśiprabodha, and another larger work called Dhvanipradīpa.' AmHtabhSratt.— As above pointed out, this commentator mentions Narendranagari as an influencial writer on the Sārasvata. Amritabhārati was a pupil o f. Amalasarasvati, and he bears the title PiaMSšM ii). His commentary is called Subodh’kā. Un£ortunately ali the existing mss. of this commenta^y contain such a confusion as to the name of the author and of his guru, some stating the work to be that of Viśveśvarābdhi, pupil of Advayasarasvati, others that of Satyaprabodhabhattāraka, pupil of Brahmasāgaramuni, 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 Amritabhārati, speaks of Narendra. The only personai information we have of him is that he was the pupil of Krishņāśrama and the son of Haribhatta or Haribhadra, a fact sufficient to indicate that he was other than the great Kshemendra of Kāśmīr, who lived a full century before Bopadeva. Kshemendra speaks of some predecessors of his, and he is in turn quoted by Jagannātha, the
1 See Dr. Bhandarkar’e Keport for 1882-83, p. 12,
U f S k .G r .]


Systms of Sanskrit Grammar

§ yy~]

author of Sārapradīpikā, and unfavourably criticised by Bhatta Dhaneśvara who explicitly calls his own comraen* tary 3ri)vgQuM4if’ fr, As a ms. of this last work is dated Samvat 1653, it clearly follows that Kshemendra could not have lived later than the first quarter of the sisteenth century.
Chandrakīrtl His commentary is indifferently called Subodhikā or Dīpikā. From the praśasti given at the end of this commentary we learn that the author was a Jain belonging to the Brihad-Gachchha of Nagpur, residing in a Jain Tīrtha called Kautika, and isth in succession from the founder of the Gachchha, Devasnri (Sarfi. 1174). He had a pupil called Harshakīrti who wrote this commentary at first hand, and who himself produced a Dhātu­ pātha and a commentary for the Sārasvata grammar. From the praśasti of this latter work we learn that Chandrakīrti was honoured by Sāhi Salem' ( a . d , 1545 to 1553) the emperor of Delhi. Chandrakīrti thus belongs to the second quarter of the sixteenth century. Mādhava.— The son of Kāhnu and pupil of Śrīrañga. 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 Chandrakīrti. VSsudevabhaṭṭa.-~He calls himself the pupil of Chaņdīśvara and gives2 the date of his commentary to be Sariivat 1634. The commentary is called Sārasvataprasāda. Maņdana.—From the colophon at the end of the ñfMJUbUn we learn that Maņdana was the Mahā-pradhāna and Safighapati to Alpasāhi. His father was named Vāhada
1 Compare— aftnu n ifo ñ ftPļffoī- 2 Compare—

ft»ir «amftRn nrfvn;' sJNrnrvftffc ṅg: n smnftsii

geortīHhīTvr «

[ - § 77 Commentators on Sārasvata-prakriyS


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

Dhaneśvara. —He wrote his commentary with


Sysiems of Sanskrit Grammar

§ 77 - ]

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

Sahajaklrtl.— It is a relief to come from these shadowy figurēs to one who is somewhat less chary of giving us information about himself. Sahajakīriti was a Jain, a Vāchanāchāraya and a pupil of Hemanandanagaņi of the Kharatara Gachchha. The com. is called Sārasvataprakriyāvārtika and was composed1 in A . D. 1623. Hañsavl|ayagaņl—The contribution of this author is very slight, he having been apparently content to write a very diffuse com. called Śabdārthachandrikā on the introductory verses of the SSrasvataprakriyā. He was the pupil of Vijay3 nanda and flourished about Samvat 1708 = a . D . 1650.

[ • 5 77

Commenlators on Sārasvata-prakriy3


Rimabbatta.— This author's coin. is a crṛriosity ņot so muçh for its subject matter as for the manner of its compilation. The com. is called Vidvatprabodhinī or Rārabhattī 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 Āndhra coming from the Telañgaņa country, or more definitely, from the reģions around the Urañgala hills, where ruled in his days a king called Pratāparudra, 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 Kāṛnā. Having led a very happy life in his native piace and written various literary \vorks—among others, commentaries on the three Kāvyas of the great Kālidāsa—the author in the company of his wife, two sons called Lakshmldhara and JanSrdana, and daughters-in-law starts, at the advanced age of seveņty-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 ķept 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 praśasti, together \vith a stanza or twç in praise of the filial affection and dutifulness of the two sons. Although the diary is not as accurate and detailed as we would wish and the incidents of the journey by no means unusual yet the picture it gives of the real sooial life some three hundred years ago is by no means void o£ charm. It is to be regretted that none of the mss. accessible are complete. In addition to these names there could be mentioned a few others—such as RatnSkara, N5rāyaņahh 5 rati,


Systems of Sanskrit Grammar

§ 77 “ J

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

Prakrlyl.— The most famous of these, as having given rise to more than one sub-commentaries is the Siddhāntachandrikā by Ramchandrāśrama. As we possess little Infor­ mation about this author, we at once turn to his commentators. These are i. Lokeśakara, son o£ Kshemañkara and grandson of Rāmākām. He wrote a com. on the Siddhāntachandrikā called Tattvadīpikā in the year i. e. a . d . 1683. And ii. Sadānanda who wrote a com. called Subodhinī, which has been published at Benares. Rāmachandrāśrama appears also to have written an abridgment of his own com. called Laghu-Siddhāntachandrikā. Another independent com. on the Sārasvata sñtras is by Tarkatilakabhattāchārya, the son of Dvārika or Dvarakādāsa and the younger brother of Mohana Madhusūdana. The author points’ out many interpolations in the works of Anubhūtisvarupāchārya. He wrote his work in 1614 A. D. in the reign of Jahangir.2 Siddhāntaratna by Jinendu or Jinaratna is yet an­ other. We know nothing about it or its author. The com. is very short and probably very modern. One more extensive work on the Sārasvata remains to be mentioned. It was undertaken by a pupil of Bha1 With the words— 2

[ - § 79

T rea tin s Acce$sory to Sñreuvata


ttoji Dīksbita, Raghunātha by name. It is called Laghubhāshya and aspires to treat of tbe various grammatical topics aftfir the manner of Patañjal.'. Raghunātha was a Nāgara, the son of Vināyaka, and belongs, as the pupil of Bhattoji to the middle of the seventeenth century.
79. Treatises accessory to the Sārasvata.— Of acC6SS0ry treatises in connection with the Sārasvata there are very few. There are no works on Uņādis or Paribhāshās. A Dhātupātha with a com. on it called Tarañgiņī was composed, as stated above, by Harshakīrti, pupil of Chan* drakīrti. His date, therefore, is cir. i 56o A. D. A writer called Jñānatilaka has put together ali the examples of ṭ&dj and yuiit^ atfixes based on the Sārasvata chapters dealing with them. A ms. of this work is dated Samvat 1704. Another writer named Mādhava has attempted a derivation of words according to the Sārasvata. His date is probably* 1680; and these are ali, or at any rāte, ali worth noticing.

As the Sārasvata 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 Laghusiddhāntachandrikā above noticed, an author called Kalyāņasarasvati has produced fļfratrunr a small work called Laghusārasvata. He lived probably towards the close of the i8th century.
80. General revlew of the blatory of the Sārasvata school.—

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


Sļ/stetns of Sanskrit Grammar

$ 8o - j

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

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

physician named Keśava and his teacher’s name was Dhaneśa. Bopadeva’s birth-place is said to have been somewhere near the modern Daulatabad in the Mahratta country, then ruled by the Yādavas of Devagiri. Bopa­ deva is quoted by Mallinātha (cir. 1350) in his commen-

f - § 83

Bopadeva's Mugdhabodha


tary on the Kumāra, and he is known’ to have been the protege of Hemādri, who was a minister (sfbEVOTtffrv) to Mahādeva the Vādava king o£ Devagiri (1260-1271 A. D.), and to his successor Rāmadeva. Bopadeva's father as well as teacher lived at a place called Sārtha situated on the banks of the Varadā. He was thus a native of the Berars.2 Although born of Varidya patents he bears the surname Gosvāmi or high priest. Bopadeva was a scholar of great renown and a voluminous writer. Besides the Mugdhabodha, Kavikalpadruma, and its commentary— the Kāmadhenu—Bopadeva has written the Muktāphala and Harililāvivaraņa (both dealing witli the Bhāgavatapurāņa), a medical \vork called Sātaślokī, and a treatise on Dharmaśāstra.3
83. The object of Bopadeva’s Mugdhabodha.— We have seen how various attempts were made quite early to improve upon Pāņini’s grammar by making his rules more terse and accurate. Where these attempts were made in the way of vārtikas or commentaries, they increased the student's difficulties rather than simplified them. And where attempts were made to establish a new school independently of Paņini, the founders were in most cases the followers of some unorthodox church, so that the need of a fresh manual ( as distinguished from a mere recast of old rules and terms) remained as pressing as ever.
1 Compare— ṛṇrgg^Tll fSṇṛļjṭ5wrII—from tho gvirrqtçṛ, and 1 # h r 5 TWH*yiWIĪVT fsļr^csrit 1 f t f v r

the Bhsgavata cau be provod from various arguments : amongst others the followicg quotation (VrljtViJIDrnf«ī fitratṅfit 1 efluTuvntfšṭ 3


uVSfcmtfrgaft 1 1 —from the gftiftg rñ n w . Dr. Bbandarkar’8 Early Ilistory of the Deccan, p. 89.
T h at Bopadeva did not w rito

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

i4 [ Sk. Gr. ] '


$ystems of-Sanskrit Grammar

| 63 —]

It was at such a juncture that Bopadeva wrote his Mugdhabodha. His object therein was simplicity coupled with brevity.. The first he attained by follouring the natūrai mode of presentation such as is found in the Kātantra. For the second, the adopted Pāņini’s pratyāhāra-sntras—making in them the changes necessary for their adoption to his own system. He omits ali noticēs of accents, and the Vedic peculiarites are dismissed in one (the last) sūtra— arçrfSr, corresponding to Pāņini’s 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 Rāma ; but later writers have outdone him in this respect. Even the technical terms of some of these modern grammarians are the names of Krishņa, Rādhā, Śiva, Durgā, etc. We shall have occasion to revert to these later. Bopadeva’s technical terms often deviate from Pāņi­ ni’s.2 Owing to the absence of ali the its of the Pāņinīya system and a slightly varied arrangeraent of letters, the pralyāhāras or rather the samāhāras of Bopadeva are quite puzzling to a student of P āņini; and since ali ancient ivriters and commentators have followed the Paņinīya grammar in their writings, this extreme divergence from his system prevented the Mugdabodha from being studied in ali parts of India, which its clear and logical method entitled it to be.
1 ThuB is illustrated by instance of « tto is—ṛm : g n ft, the n& gyn»rrsviļmm option&l forms tņt, etc. and so on everywh«re. are shown by— 2 For csumplc, ij for ņ iç f for ftn ñ * 1«m* Vfoa'ffī£ ; for fw for fW»iīs®iN an etc.

[ - § 84

Bopadeva's School: Later History


Later Matory of Bopadeva’s 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£ Pāņi­ ni it enjoyed a wide currency as well in the Iand of its origin as elsewhere. This is clear from the statements of Bhattoji-dīkshita in the Śabdakaustubha and in the Manoramā. In the latter he says— trrrtrr « He is also at great pains to refute the opinions of the author of the Mugdhabodha, which must have dominated the literary worid before the advent of Bhattoji. It was only in the seventcenth century that like other non-Pāņinīya systems of grammar this school had to take refuge in a country which was farthest removed from Mahratta influence, that is, Bengal, or rather the neighbourhood of Nadia cn both the sides of the Ganges, where it continues to be assiduously studied to the present day. During the few centuries of its existence the Mug­ dhabodha has produced quite a bewildering number of digests and commentaries. The most celebrated of the commentaries is that of Rāmatarkavāglśa, a profound logician and an adept in the grammars of other schools (qn%r<T n f % n a i 4 < s rr • ' )> upon whose systems he frequently draws to supply errors or omissions in the Mugdha­ bodha. He is quoted by Durgādāsa (1639 A. D.) who wrote a commentary on the Kavikalpadruma. Durgādāsa also quotes Rāmānanda, Devīdāsa, and Kāśīśvāra and his predecessors, while he is in his turn quoted by Vidyāvāgiśa, Bholānātha, and Rāmabhadranyāyālañkāra.


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar


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

As the aim of the Mugdhabodha was brevity, it was inevitable that it should have omitted several obscure rules. Accordingly we find three attempts made one after another to supply the defects : by Nandakiśorabhatta, by Kāśīśvara, and by Rāmatarkavāgīśa. The first of these gives his date—iHHHiM+loJiṭHrfilrt, 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 ā list of roots arranged accordingly to their endings, and a commentary on the same called Kāmadhenu, the chief importance of which for us lies in its numerous quotations. Attempts more or less successful have been since made to give to this school other accessory treatises. Rāmachandravidyābhnshņa (Šaka 1610) wrote a Paribhāshāvritti. Rāma­ tarkavāgīśa put together an alphabetically arranged Uņādikośa. And there are other minor works attributed, probably by mistake, to Bopadeva himself.

The Jaumara School
86. The Jaumara school of Kramadiśvara.—The name by which this school is popularly known is a misnomer. It comes from Jumaranandī the most celebrated writer of the school, though we have reason to think that he lived some time after its founder. This was Kramadiśvara styled « I i f i - 5 ^ N o t h i n g is known of Kramadīśvara’s parentage and nativity. His work is called Safikshiptasāra, indicating by it that it was an epitome or an abridgment of some larger grammar; and as it could be the

[ - § 88

The Jaumara School


abridgment of no other grammar than Pāņini’s, it is pos. sible that this was the first of its kind, prior to the Prakriyā- and Siddhānta-kaumudīs. Aufrecht in fact makes the school even anterior to Bopadeva, though Coiebrooke places it immediately after.
87. Special features of the Jaumara — Kraraadīśvara seems

to have composed his grammar on the modei of Bhartrihari’s Mahābhāshya-dīpikā, and he has taker most of his illustrations from the Bhattikāvya. The \vork meant as an epitome of the Ashtādhyāyī is about three-fourths as large as that work. The only changes effected by Kramadīśvara were confined to the rejection of a few superfluous or difficult rules of Pāņini and the adoption of a different mode of arrangement. The work is divided into seven pādas,1 the eighth dealing with Prākrit being added later. In the mode of systematising the grmmatical material, as also in accuracy and method, the grammars of Bopadeva and others certainly compare favourably with this grammar, which may be due to its being perhaps the first of its kind. Stili it is not altogether wanting in correct reasoning, and the erudition displayed by Kraraadīśvara is far in advance of that of popular grammarians. 88. Commentaries on the Jaumara.— The Sañkshiptasāra as it left the hands of Kraraadīśvara must have been either incomplete or deficient, and it has undergone a more or less thorough revision at the hands of Jumaranandī who is styled in the mss. HSTTPSTrRrrrsr. Detractors of the school make much fun of the name Jumaranandī, which they believe belongs to a man of the weaver caste. Jumaranandī’s vritti is known as Rasavatī and in consequence the school itself bore the name of Rāsavata under which
1 . Ntttnely, ṛrffcj,

W IW Ī, «***,


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 88 - ]

title it is quoted by Bharata the commentator on the Bhattikāvya. Jumarnandi’s seems to have been the earliest exposition of this system. He has also revised for this school the Pāņiniya Dhātupātha.1 Next to Rasavatī, GoyTchandra’s commentary deserves a brief menti on. Goyīchandra 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 Goyīchandra’s commentary is that on the fifth or the Kāraka pāda, which along with its able and learned gloss by Abhirāmavidyālañkāra is studied even by the students of other schools for the sake of a correct and complete understanding of syntax. Besides this commentary Goyīchandra has also written a work on the Uņādis, and a list of some 127 paribhāshās. Goyīchandra’s commentary is further commented upon by Nyāyapañchānana, son of Vidyāvinoda, a ms. of which is dated Saka 1634 ;b y Keśavadeva styled Tarkapañchānanabhattāchārya ;3 by Chandraśekharavidyālañkāra ; by Vamśīvādana, Harirāma, and many others. Independently of Goy!chandra’s gloss there do not seem to be in existence any notable commentaries on the Jaumara grammar. Colebrooke mentions only one by Gopālachakra vārti.
89. Present status of the Jaumara school.— *Next to the Kāt­ antra this grammar has the widest circulation at present in Western Bengal, where it disputēs with Mugdhabodha the palm for supremacy. The literary activity*of the school—such as it is—is not yet over. 1 Compare ms. no. 196 of Noticēs, 3 The commentary is callednofṛm ■
second aeries, vol. i.. gtfiṭļjmgj and regarding it the
author eays— ttnr-


Ezplained as—aimVHT*

trçrr «mgfhnñti Ape» ffenSMr mBr i

«njvn jfair g ṇtṭ • shvmt ftrṅvorśtçinī»

C- I 9*

The Saupadma School

The Saupadma School
originator of this school is a Maithila Brabman naraed Padraa* nābhadatta, the son of Dijraodaradatta and grandson of Śrīdatta. This Padmanābhadatta is to be distinguished from another writer of the same name, the son of Gaņeśvara and grandson of Silpati, who wrote for the school a work called Prishodarādivritti, vrhich ivas vrritten, accord* * * ing to the author’s own statement, in Saka 1297 (A. D. 1375). If this date be correct1 it follows that the other Padmanābhadatta, 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 Bhūriprayoga. His being placed in the last quarter of the fourteenth century does not, at any rate, conflict with any other hitherto ascertained facts.
90. 91. Speclal features of the Saupadma.—Regarding the work of Padmanābhadatta it is, as he himself states, based upon Pāņini, some of whose sūtras and technical terms as also his pratyāhāras he has retained verbatim. He has, of course, remodelled4 a greater part of Pāņini's rules and arranged them in a somewhat more methodical form, adding a short explanation of his own after each sūtra.4 ṛ i s
1 A ms. of the work is no. 228 2Compare— «frTOT ṣlf q Āṣrr» of Noticēs, second series, * vol. i. The date looks rather gr nStiTl%Q gg • sustiem us from the fact that N in the beginning of the same 3 Thus Pāņini’s h% IT T work the author has attempted is changed into3*ṛf^ffaT*$r«r to trace his accestry from HHVg: i Vararuchi, one of the nine 4 The work consists of five chapgems in the court of vikramters dealing with i. ffṇṭṛ and Sditya. Necdless to say that 5ii. gfTCgf and dedension; the attempted geneology is a iii. aṛnsgra; iv. and g omļfr failure. suffixes | and v.

The Saupadma school of Padmaribhadatta — The


Systcms o f Sanskrit Grammar

§ 91 - ]

treatment of Pāņini—the fact of his having retained most of the Pāņinīya terminology—has 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 Pāņini’s terminology.
92. Commentaries on the Saupadma.— Padmanābha, the founder of the school, has himself written a commentary on his grammar, called the Supadmapañjikā. Several later commentaries are mentioned by Colebrooke, such as those of Kandarpasiddhānta, Kāśīśvara, Srīdhara-chakravarti, Rāmachandra, etc. The best of the lot is Vishņumiśra’s 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 Uņādis, Dhātus, and Paribhāshās were written by the founder himself. At the conclusion of the last work, Paribhāshāvntti, the author has given an up-to-date account of his literary activity, which is of considerable value.1 Regarding his work on the Uņādis (Uņādivntti) it follows a peculiar plān of arrangement. “The treatise is divided into two chapters, the first containing the suffixes that end in a vowel, and the second those in consonants. They are ali arranged alphabetically. The sūtras are Padmanābha’s own composition, and in his explanations he usually follows Ujjvaladatta.” The paribhāshās of the Saupadma school are some of them word for word Pāņini's, while others are modelled on that basis. The Dhātupātha follows Pāņini’s division into arçrlt etc, and has a com. on it called
1 See India Office Cat&logue, Part ii, Ms. no. 890.


Later Sectarian Schools


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

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

«tRķ# «it ḥiteļt (?) IsreSpr 1 > r

> '

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. ]


Śystetñs of Samkrit Grammar

§ 96 « *]

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

The author of the Prabodhaprakāśa is Bālarāmapañchānana, 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 Šiva, so that we read in his work of gīfHrgčr3^ f » u ^, RisfirddlRtfm iṛ , etc. Here is one of his sātras çjfrrrvṛr, which is explained httj? «R • A Dhātuprakāśa is also attributcd to this author. It is clear that works Whlch carry things to such an extreme can claim the only merit of doggedly carrying an idea through. It may therefore be excused if no further at­ tempt is made to sketch out the history of such schools, for the simple reason that they have no history.
1 M U efelian eO flt E a s a ? * , v o l . i i . p* 1 8 .

ļ - § 9$

Lesser ikam ah and School-Ļooks


Laaaer Mannai» and Seheol-book*
98. Lesser Manuals and School-booka.— Thfe age of the

really original grammarians vras long over. It vras succeeded by that of able commentators and critics which continued as long as there was the necessity of understanding and correctly interpreting u great author. When even this became a difficult task, there ṭvas nothing to be done but the vvriting of small and smaller manuals adapted to the comprehension of the lay understanding. We have seen how, in most of the schools of gram­ marians worthy of the name, the declining age of each vritnessed a host of such manuals aud manuals of manuaU. Even this, it would appear, was not enough. Out of the debris of these schools there grew up a spirit of eclecticisra, and novr we meet vrith gramraatical handbooks vrhich depend upon no system, and were vrritten merely for a select circle of the uninitiated. These mushroom crops disappeared as fast as they were produced. They vrere not vrritten for posterity. Before vre close this essay we sliall take up a fevr typical works of this class. 1. Prabodhachandrikā—A 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 Rāma. The author is supposed to be Vijjala-bhūpati, the son of one Vikrama and Chandrāvatī and belonging to the Chauhāņa race ruling at Patna. He vrrote it for the benefit of his son Hirādhara. A commentary called Subodhinl is vrritten upon it by Gopālagiri doubtless a protege of the prince. 2, Bhoja-vydkaraņa by Vinayasundara^r^ ritte n for the benefit of a king Bhoja, son of Bhāramalla. This


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar


work, like the above, is metrical in form, folloṭving the usual topical arrangement. 3. Bhāvasimhaprakriyā by Bhatta-ṛināyaka —This is another of what we may call ‘royal’ grammars. It was written for the edification of Bhāvasimha the eldest son of a local prince who is styled ^d^T is; (Lord of the Earth). 4. Dipavyākaraņa by Chidrūpāśrama—The author calls himself <Tr*T?HtRnrwļi. 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. Kārikāvali by Nārāyaņa surnamed Bhattāchāryachakravarti—This elementary grammar was meant originally for the author’s son, who in this case has made a grateful return by writing a commentary on the same. 6. Bālāvabodha by Narahari—This is the last of these little manuals—each typical of a host of others— that we mention. The work is meant to remove the obstacles in the way of students learning the five mahākāvyas, arising from the circumstance of their not having learnt grammar before. The author assures us that with the help of his work «r it.rrf nnfH. In it words and their forms are taken up in the order in which they are required for the study of the Kāvyas 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 natūrai termination.

App. i. ]

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar


( See note 2 on pag: 60 ) 1 1 1 1

3* Rṭi hh: 1 3* 1 h < = ra r s ^žtrh; i i ^ hīh 1 3 ^iflčTIH I 55i I I HHVĪRHT II ^rpogH rf^m : s!3rw n : 1 srrçg i^htptpt i aitift 3WFfttrat: I 'HFHHT I ^TçrHŠ kdfPJēH^HT II ^ qj?TiPļ I fafTV çrTTHPT I fa^TH«ī mēSS^HPṛ I ftTfhlM' ftRHTHIH I ^m: R O T ĪS II SnṛrHt

I 3TT«H?Ht ST FC M || ēTSrr^JJtTT’ . HfHf# t H II HfHf# WHHT I R|fT 3P S JT ṇjf PHlHf ^ I rT«it RfēRf ^flīTt: [ ] I I ?iT«nH«n'FRHT II H T U iIhT H II f^SrH *TFTFH II ^īgTl I ^Ftfat 1sṭ swr{|čftqT: v'THRHA'fl4 if^fTHçft^iqejī|fftiT fs! q - R ^ pj^ Hi^r3sr?Fn 'jthKt: i āHfHsn^^snon: 1 ṛ?d tR HĶPnorr: I ^čfPT'Ppfa'SfHr: HRp^THHHSTĶ^RT: Ti^d^uSdl^Hī'ṭ sr^IH T «flWēr: 1 *PTO ?T*itw TĪ°T: I HmrHT: HRli: l 3TH H M T THĪI: I ṛr^r sn^r: rPTñd: II
3T sr ;srm f =1# <r^t p - ṛf?r Riht Rrer:

1* HlftčT^H H I^Hrt^f^TlRRF^T Wl^THT HffrT I ^f^orffo?f 1īsrfm h flfcr 1 ?fa gr^THi 1 1 ņç=&$: 1Rmflret sftf: 1R rīi^ f: p ; 1 1 ? i^ irr : 1Ar^kī T^IrT: I H H TĶ R : VīRēr:II^TlHIfdTf^f f t ^ d l f t l ^ I I 3T H H *T T f^sp^T Hignif^Fī ñrgHifWr^fW 1 1

1 1rfit ^rarenftļsnfli mtīm# u


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

[ App. ii, * »

( See no te t on paffe 4S ) ti a w •gṇncmf l c f t t ii 3* *nr: 1 3* 1
3m T**ī




fpsn^ft svfžnT Tufotf rlMlļṅlRl'bM^ I 3TIW^W H 3[5 HT«nči ftī7 H ?7 Sfcmfo f| t o t o p t : 1 1x 1 1 HW*T Tfbrmśiī srqif K[Ķ 3Tīf^T I HHHČH ^ II 3 II ^g«r s i q% ! i w ^ Hf^rsRFtoī ^nfi 1 1» 1 1
hp» t arot

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

^ 5f
7& M

ṛ 3[ HRT^ fajṛ Hf^PTTH HH7lf^ rṛ I T II « II am*7 i t o T lfor: f^RHīs 1 1 )f^d^ñ HHīf^HTTHHn II t II Č T H t f^PW «IlUtfrudffiM*»; I
frfflw<iq w riftr n f«f « * w k wr

ṭ* «

- App. il. ]

Sjstcnis o f Sanskrit Gramthar
5 ļr r m r : i


?F5r t w i «rś
H fŪ v r ^

frfftkfrdr II i 1 |f

an^ «n f i» M ^ n ž i ifrElig+tļlt ^ grft: I) 'ik II ht: i

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

«FT «1 % HtHHfi fSP P )^ II 15 II

HT5ṛ vp?r W *fc<SI<W : II 'ir ||
*N iq qft w vF i <ramqt « « t ( ! )fafa: i

Hfft Hiyḍ+I»lf^
TVrCHēTrHīT ff+l^rkPīr H TH

II hk, II

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

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

Hpppfttft:» < »v * ii *mī: l


^hn^rki^i-Hnpu ii v


^ ^ kTMFfR ftM HHl

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

^ u ṭ ^ihrļHnf e u R r ^ 1

I ||

ṣlHt H M k h P ^ f W g ( ? )f^PTū|rF[ || ^ IHēTR^h flēf: HēTIH I M ^ ln ir l^ M Fī 'T ī ^ R 'J l f o ī f t : II k k || qqu<«<ii^ qjwf|5i q^ 3 ynitl^ i

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


qfžA trHP^ççjft*. #

h^i i
*tf?f ^ H ī> ṛ ii k* u

ē t^ r


Systcms o f Sanskrit Grammar Hpsr:

[ App. ii.

1 1 x h ii

^H «rr% PlHdl^J^ēd: II
H T H^Tt blHHHl

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

'T5<Tt MT^PHHTfeT ^TC«t WḍAAil|H || V ṭ |i

f^«rmpṛ i
h ° ii

I ITH ^ M K M N U ^ a ī < T rçn*< uu^ft: W H Ī II
* A t thiB place a fe w unimportant stanzas are om itted .

N. B. Roferenccs aro to page and liue, or to page and footnoto(n), unless where preceded by § vvhich inrlicates section. The arraiigement is according to the TCnglish alphabefc, the diacritical mārks being ignored. A Abha) achandra’s recast of (Sākatāyana-) Prnkryāsañgraha72T2; ita mture 72*17ff; the date of the antbor 72T4ff. Abhayanaiidin,8version of the Jainemīra G5• 14; laler than that of Somadeva 65*23 ; his date 07-2 ; his version followed by the Pafichavastu 07T5. Abbimanyu of Kāśmīr Testeros the corrupt text of the Mahābhlīshya 83*27. ■ Abhinava-Śākatayana, scf Sakatāyuna (Jaina). Ahhirāmavidyālañkāra? 8 vritti on the Kāraka-pada of GojTchandra’s commentiivy 110*11. Acceasory treatises to Pāņini’s grammar § 1(>; their later history §85 ;—to Chāndra giammar §45 ; —to Šak*,iļāyjlua grammar §54;— to Ilemachandra’s grammar §59 ; —to the Kātantra § 70 ;—to the Sārasvata §79;—toMtigohabodhu § 85 ;—to the Saupndma § 93. Adhikāra-sūtras, how indieatcd by Pāņini 24-n2. Adhyātma-Eāmāyana, com. on, hy Nāge4ti 47 21 ; 49*0. Advayasara8vati 07*18. Agarā vara 79*21. Agnikumāra, elder brothcr of llnradatta 39*12. Agni4arrna, alias of I4varakmhņa _ 64*n4t Agrayaņa mentioned in Nirnkta _ 8*nl. Agrāyana mentioned in Nirnkta 8*nl. Aindra school, supplanled by P ā­ ņini 10*15 ; amongst its fcllowera Kātyāyana (Vararuchi), Vyāḍi and Indradatta 10*16; its acoonnt by Hiuen Tsang and Tārā16 [Sk. Gr.] nātha 10*17 ; agrecing with Kā­ tantra and perha ,> s idunical with it 10*20, 12*i, 84*14 ; revea’ .ed by Kārtt;keya 10*22; anulogies in tho Piātiriākhyas 11*12 ; its ter­ miņ 4ogy in the Tolakappiyam 11*8; BurneJPs conclusion about it ll*9ff ; post-PāņiuTya in date and pre-PāninIya in substance 11-32. Aindra School of grammarians, by Dr. Buruell 3*nl ; 5*n2 ; 11 •r11. Aitihāsikub mentioned in the Nirukta 8-nl. Ajajupāla successor of Kumārapāla 75* 11. Ajitaseiiāchārya author of Maņiprakātfikā, com. on tli) ChintS_ māņi 72*7. Ājurikā 67*5. Akalañkadcva 63*n4. Alaudin, Sultān 99* 1G . Alherunl 91 *J 6. A h* xamkr 15*35 ; 16*34 ; Pāņini lived before his invasion 17*2 ; razed Sangala to gronnd 17*15 ; 18*8. Alpakhāna or Sultān Alaudin 99*nl. Alpasāhi or Alām, patron and master of Maņdana 98*29ff ; probahly a local ehieftain from Mālva 99*12 ; not the same ns Sultān Alaudin 99*nl. Amalasarasvati teacher of Amritabhārati 97.12. Arnara quoted by name in Bopadeva’s Mngdhabodha 10*n3. Amarachandra’s Syādisamuchehay a 80*8ff. Amarakosha, com. on , lll*n2 ; Ly Kshīrasvāmin 52*7. Amoghavarsha I ( Rāshtrakūta ), patron of (Ja in a ) Śākatāyana 69*14,69*n2. Amoghavntti 64*n4 ; written by


Sjystem$ o f Sanskrit Grammar
Art of w ritin g, \vhcn introduced 4*26 ; presupposed by primitive _ _ P rāti4 ākh yas 4*30. Ārya-śrutuklrti auth or ( ? ) of the Pañehavastu 67*21ff. Ā rvavaira ouoted by ( J a i n a ) Śāka tāy a n a 70-n5A sañ jñ a k a a niekname for Ch ānd ra g ra m m ar 60*4. A s h tā d h y ā y l of Pā ņini 7*2 ;*9*7 ; 9*9 : 32*n2 ; 12*17; oldcs1 ; surviving \voik in s ū tia btyle 13*2 ; 18*26 ; why so called 19*20; programmē of, pp. 2 0 -2 ! , and 22*nl ; arnuig em ent of sūtras w ithin it, 24*21ff, 24*n3 ; treatises accos,;ory to it §16 ; sometimes its teaching contrary to th a t of tho U n ā d isū tru s 26*14, 26*i:2 ; 27*17 ; 29*20 ; recastR of §29, 57*2 ;c o m . on it by Blmtteji 47*12 ; com on it by A rm a m b ha tta 50*24 ; 5 6 1 0 ; meiiiious 6 ā k a f a y a n a 68*26 ; 109*101 ; see also Pāņini. A s ia tic Soc-ety o f Bengal, Journal o f , 33* n l . A s sy n a u s not unknow n to Indians before Alexander’s invasion 15*32; mentioned aR m erccnary figlders by I ’āņitii 17*23; blotted out as a political povvcr in 538 P.O., 17*27 : 18*9. Asuras, see Assyrians. A u d u m b a rāy a ņ a m entioned in the N iru kta 8*nf. A ufu'oht 42*n2; 45*n3 ; his edition of U n ā d iv ritti 54*11 ; 68*nl ; 108*1 109*3. A up a m an ya va m entioned in the N irukta 8 * n l. Aurņavābha mentioned in th e N irukta 8*nl. A utthāsanika title o f GoyTehandra 110*6, 110 *d 2. A uv ata 42*9ff. Avachūri or A vach ūrņ ikā on Hema_ c h an d ra ’s B ņ h a d v ņ t t i 78*9. Ā va4yaka-sūtra 73*nl.

ģākatāya n a him self 69*13; its ḍate 69*16, 69*n2,72*nl ; Ny5sa on — by P ra b h ā cb a n d iā c h āry a 72*2 ; Yukçhav<ir»im; ’s C ld rtā maņi based , upon ^ 72*4; refe rs to various Bvctām bara works 73*n l ;. drawn upon f ree ly by H e m ac han dra 76*13, 70*nl ; 76*n2. A m r i ta b h ā r a t i ’s com , Bubodhikā, on S ā ra sv a t t-prakriyā mentions N a ren d ra as the author of Sārusvata 95*2(Jff, 97*11 ; quntes Viinalasarasvati 4 4-nl ; per, on»l dotails about h :m 97*12ff ; his date 97*22. A m v i ta s r t ' by V ā rḍņāvaneśa, a com. on the lMakriynkaunni.iT 46*nl. A m rita tarañgiņ l scc Knhlratardñ ginī. Anahillapattakn 74*18. A na nd apā la of Kāśtrur 91*15 ; his dato 9l*18. A ncient Indian L ite ratu re, H isiory o f f b}' Max MUll< r, 4*nl : 4*n3; 9-nl ; 12*nl ; U m l . A n d h ra 82*n3 ; 101*8. A n n a m b h a t t a ’H Mitāksharīī on tho A s h tā d h y ā y l 5 0 2 4 . A nuhandh as o f P ā ņ in i 23*20 ; the 8ystem already know n before Pāņini 23*nl ; — of the i hatiipātha same as thoso of tjie ARhtādh y a y ī 25*18 ; — of U ņ ā d i sū tras same as P ā ņ i n i ’s 26*10;— of Vājasaneyi P rā tiś ā k h y a same as those o f Pā ņ ini 29*n2. A nu bhū l i svar ū pā ch a rv a ’s !Sā ra sva t aprakriyā 92*n l, §76 ; the tradi­ tional founder of Sārasvata 95*3 ; his vārtik as 95*9 ; bis date 96*15f: ; intorpoJations in his com. 102*25, lQ2*nl. Aparājita pre ceptor of H a r a d a P a 39*13. Apitśali, fo u n d e r of a gramm atieal school, and quoted by Pāņini 9*23, 12*n2 ; his rule quoted by the Kā4ikā 9*24, 9*n3, 10.nl ; 37*8 ; K a i y y a t a quotes from his gramm ar 10*4, 10*u2 ; quoted by name in B opa d eva ’s Mugdhabodha 10*7, 10*n3. Ā raņ yaka, T a ittirly a, 4*n2. Arctio H om e in t h e Vedas, 3*n2.

Bahadui Shah 78*27. Ihiiji 35*nl ; 41*19. Bālabodhinī by B h a tta Ja g a d d h ara 9 M 2 , w ith U g r a b h ñ t i ’s Nyttsu

General Index


on the same 91,14. B hitta-viriāvaka’s BhāvasiihhaBālamanoramā an abridgmfnt of PrakriyJt 116.3. the Pramthamanoramā p< rhaps B1. 4tik āvya quoted by Haradatta by ihe same author 47.8. 39 .t > 3 ; 77.16 ; 109.9 ; com. on— BiTļambhattT, a com. on the Vyavnb3r Bharata 110.2. hārakāruļa of the Mitāksbarā, by Bhattoji Dīkshita 9.n2 ; difetinguiVaidyanātha, uscrihed to bis shen botvṭeen the two authors patronfsa 50.10. of the Kāsikā 36.4, 36.nt ; acBRLirāmapañchāiinna’s Prauodl a know!cdges indei todnesa to the ņrakāsa 114.191? ; his Dhātupr.Bñpamull 45.n l ; bis modei kā&t 114.20. for Siddliāhta-ksMimudī the PraBāla Śāstri, editor of the Kā4ikā krh~kaumudī of Rāmuchandra 36.n3. 45.10 ; his Siddhānta-kaumudT Bālāvabodha, Chāndra reenst by and other wor>s § 31 ; authors i\ā£yapa 62.20 ; eupt-iecdrs ali tļuoted hy him 46.n2 ; his preother Chāndra treatises in Oeysmued im lebtedness to llem alon 62.23. i char.dra’s Śabdānuśāsana 46.21 ; Bftlāvabodha by Narahari 116.1611. * disciplo o f Śeshakrishņa 46.3 ; Bāņa 53.23. pei soiiiA dotai Is about him Bendall, Catalogue of Nepal ms?. 40.23IT ; lns date 47.3ff ; works 4 5 .n2. of Bhattoji Līkshita 4 7 -9fF, 53.3, Bhāgavata-purāņa 105.n l, 105.12 ; 53.16, 54.17 ; gencological table not the \vork o f Bopad eva 105.n3. for B h aitoji’s fam ily 48.nl ; his Elmīra v a i n i ś u ’R co m . on tho 13u ipart in modern rcvival of Pāņini bLuelicodu^kliaia 55.9 . 92.17 ; 103.5 ; testi lies to the do­ Bhandarkar 1\. G., llepoit for 1883mi nation of Bopadeva 107. 7ft. 84, 3 G.ti2 ; Report for 1882-83, Bhāv ipra kāśikā, Vai dy ān āth a ’s 97.n l ; on P ā ņ i’dV, (bite 14.7 ; com. on the Babdaratna 50.15* on Patañjali's date 32.12 ; Eaily Bhfivishvotlnia-Purāņa 39.19; 40.3. H istory of tho Deccan 105.m2. BhTmabhaļta s com. on the PariBhandarkar S Ih 99 n l. bhāshenduśekhara 55.10. Bhānu-dīksU 'a abas Viśv. śvaia Bhimasena 42.8 ; mentioncd as a nlias Rāmāśrama, son of Bhalloji vniter on loots by Sāyaņa 53.2. 46.25. BhīHhmaparvan, Mahābhārata, 16.8. B h āradvāja mentioned by Punini Blu ja cļucted by Ksbīrasvārain52.3; 12.n2. tjnotod by Hemachandra 76.n2. B h ā ia d v ā jīv a m eutioned hy P atafi­ Bhoja II ( Śdālmra ) 67.4. jali 31.nlO . Bhoja, son of Bhaiamalla 115*33. Bhāramalla, fathe r o f Bhoja 115.33. Bhoja vvākarana by VinavasuñBhnrata, commentator of tfe Bliaļdara 115.32ff. tikāvya 110.2. Bliolānātha quoting from DurgāBhartrihari*s acconnt of the vicissidāsa 107-32. tudea in the text o f the MahāBhuiiprayoga o f Padmanābhadatta bhāshva 13.26, 13-n4 ; 27.n5 ; aut­ qi;otcs U j jvaladatta 111 l3 f, hor of Vākyapadīya §27,55.23 ; 111.712. Itsin g ’s date for him 40-17 ; also Bhūtibali fpiotcd by Pujyapāda author of a com , Dipi kā, on the 66 n.2 . Mahābliāehya 4 i.3 , 4 2 .n 2 ,109.8 ; Dombi v Braneh of the B. A» 8 ., quoted by Vitthalāchārya 45.20 ; jv urnai of, 3 5 .n2. his preceptor Vasurāta 59.1. Bopadeva qnotcs by name various Bhāsa’s Svapna-Vāsa vadāt tā 13.28. grammarians 10.7, 10.n3, 92.5 ; Bhāshyakāra, see Patafijali. rjuotod hy Vitthalāchftrya 45.21; Bbāvasimha 116.5. mentions D evanadl as author o f Bbāvasimha-Prakriyā hy Birntta­ Juinendia grammar 63.22; quotes vi nāyaka 11G.3. Vardhamāna 88.23 ; quotesT riloBhaUa Gopāla 100.16ff.



Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

chanadāsa 89.2 ; nowhere re- Chandragomin 20*8; his date fer« to Sārasvata 92.1, 93*26 ; 35*19; quoted by name in Bopa97.32 ; bis date 91.27 ; §82 ; per­ dcva’s Mugdhabodhal0.n3; men­ sonai details about him 105.3011: ; tioned by Vāmanāchārya 53*30, hia works lOo.lOfli, 105.n3; the re53*n2 ; quoted in Gaņaratnaligiou9 element in his grammar mahodndhi 18.nl; Chandragomin 106.llff, 113.13,114.16, 106.nl ; and his v/ork §22, also §§42 and his extreme divergence from foliovving ; vvas a Bauddha 35*4, Pāņini’s technical terminology 59*5 ; and wrote primarily for 106.26ff; his opinions refuted by his own Church 35*6 ; his unBha^oji 107.12; his present lim­ orthodox inuovatioDB 35*6 ; the itē J influence 107-18 ; 109.4 ; Kātflkū largely indetbed to him 109.18 ; 112.3. 37*1811: ; iliustrations 38*nl ; his Brāhmaņas, grammatical speculagrammar edited by Liebich tions in, §3 ; their language very 38-nl ; cari irst reference to him different from thatof the Sainhiand his predecessors 41T9ff ; tās 3.8, 3.nl ; their u ain interesi: mentioned l>y Kshīrasvāmin as sacerdotal, and grammar only of author of some work on roots seeondary interest 3 24 ; 6.nl ; 52*14, 52’n2 ; his Dhātupātha 12.6; 56.2. incorporated with the Kātantra Brahmasagaramuni 97.19. ļ 52*18; 57*n2; his date §43, 58-n2, Brihad-gachchha of Nagpur 98.10 ; ! 64*13 ; his own vritti on the founded by Dcvasūri 98.12. Chāndra sūtras 58*22, Gl*9 ; exists Bņ 1 1 at -K har at ara -ga chc!iha 99.15. now in fragments 61.10 ; incor­ porated fcy Dharinadāsa 61*12 ; Brihadvritti, aco fcibdānudāsananature of bis work §44; imņroves brihadvritti. upon Pāņinīya grammar 59*9fli ; Bfihler, on introduetion of art of his Dbātiipātin 59* 14 ; his really vvriting 4.n3; redards Jayāditya original contvihution 59*19; his a Kāsmīrian 36 .22, 30.n4 ; 41.7 ; ohjuet 59*27.11 ; his turminology 58.6 ; his pmnphlet on IlmnamostIy PāņinTya 60*1 ; his gram­ chandra 73 12ff ; 77.6 ; 82.n2 ; mar rn’ekn īrned Asañjñaka 00.4, 85.n3 ; 91.8 ; 91.n2. 60*nl ; other uccessory works Burnell, Bssay on Aindra School of hy him 00*9ff ; no Chāndra parigrammarians, 3.nl; 10.25; ll.n l: bhāshiīs 61*2 ; non-grammatical 11.8 ; 12.9 ; 82.12. works of, 61*411 ; 69*19; 70-21T, 70-n2; 70*n3 ; 70.n4 ; 71*2; C (ļuoted hy Hemachandra 76* n2 ; his grammar said to agrce with Oambay 53.28 ; 74.9. that of Pāņini 10*19. Cevlon, Chāndra treatises in, 61.22 ; C h a n d ra k iu i a n th o r o f S u b o d h ik ā 62.15. Chāchiga fatber of IIemnebaudi a i or Dlpikā on >iārapvata-prakriyā 98*711; personai d e ta ils ab o u t him 73.25. 98*10ff ; his d ate 98* 17fṭ ; pat.roChaitanya 113.18. n ise d hy Salii S alem , th e em perot Chaitanvēmrita, a Vaishņava gram­ o f Delhi 98*17, 9 8 -n l ; 103*11. mar 114.3i Chīīkravarmaņa mentioned hy Pā­ Chandraśekhai*ri-vidyālañkāra, his commcntnry on G.oyrc:handra’s ņini I2*n2. vritti 110*19. Chakravarti, Professor Srish Chan­ Chāndra sūtras, vritti on, probab!y dra, 39.nl. by Chandragomin himself 58*23 ; Chālukya 72.25. Chaņḍrtvara teacher of Vāšu devamentions a Grupta victory over Hūņas 58*24 ; Dbarmadāsa’s combhatṭa 98.24. on, 61*12 ; other \vorks now only Chandra, see Chandragomin. in Tibetan translations 61*25 ; or Chandradāsa 59.6. Chāndra-gachchha 78.33. in Ceylon 61*22; their list 61*nl;

General In d ex
Ceylonese recast supersecļf s them in Ceylon 62.23.,
ChandrāvatT mother o f Vijjalabhñpatt 116.27. Chāñgadeva, Hemachandra’s first name 73.25. Charaņas, rules for, framed 4.10. Charmaśiras mentioned ?n the Nirukta 8 .n l. Chauhāna 116-28. Chhāyā, V aidyanātha’s eom. on the MahābbāshyapradTpoddyota 50.14. Chheda-sūtra 7 3 .n l. Chhichbubhatta’aLaghuvritti 91.19. Chidastbimālā, Vaidyanātha’s com. on N āgojibh atta’s Śabdenduśekhara 50.16. Chidrūpā^rama’s Dlpavyākarana H 6 .7 . ^ , Chintāmaņi, com. on SākatayanaŚabdānuśāsana by Vakshavarman 72.3 ; sub-coīnmentaries on it 72.Gff. Chintāmaņi, see Mahābhāshya-ehinlām aņi. Chintāmaņipratipada, M añgarasa’s com. on the Chintāmani 72.7. Choda 16.30. Climatic conditions, causes of dialectical peculiarities, ard influeccing study of grammar 3.1. Colebrooke 68 .n l ; 109.4 ; 110.23 ; 112.12 ; 114.3. Cnnninghan» identifies P āņ in i’s native place witli Labaur 19.2.

i *5

Dākshī, name o f P āņ in i ’b mother 19.8, 1 9 .n l. Dāmodaradatta father o f Padrnanābhadatta 111.4. Darina 16.1. Darśanaiśāstra, Digambara, 65.3. Dayāpāla's abridgm ent. Bupasiddhi, o f ģākatāyana Śabdānu4āsana 72.23; personai details about him 72.23ff ; his date 72.26. D eibces ( D ivau has ) first king o f the Śakas or Skythiar:s, cir. 700 B. C. 18.1. Devachandra prophesies Hemachandra’s future greatness 74.4 ; receivCR him into order 74.11. Devagiri 104.32, 105.3.

Devanandī author o f Jainendra gram m ar63.14ff; h i§n ew techni* eal terms 66.5, 6 6 .n l, does not acknow ledge obligations 66-10 ; namea tjuoted by him 66.12, 6 6 .n2 ; 67.16 qtioted by H em achandṛa 76.n2. Devarāja mentions KabTrasvāiruVs N ighaņ tuvn tti 52.10. Devasundarasūri teacher o f Guņa ratnasfiri 80.15. Devasūri founder o f the Brihad gaeiichha o f Nagpur 98.10ff. Devendraburi author o f Haimu laghunyāsa and pupil o f Udayn chandra 78.33ff, 7 9 .n l. D evldāsa quoted by Durgādāsa 107.30. Dhanachandra 78.14. Dhanañjaya-kotśa 63.21. Dhanetśvara or D hantia teacher o f Bopadeva 99.n2 ; 104.30, 1 0 5 .n l. Dhanes vara, BhaUa, criticises K shemendra 98.2f, 99.21 ; his date 99.21H; not same as teacher of Bo­ padeva 99.n2 ; his works 100.lfl:. Dharmaoāsu’s com. incorporatee the Chāndravritti 61.12. Dlnrina sūtras o f som e kind known to Pāņini 14.n2. Dhātupātha, the PāņinTya 25.14, 2 5.n2 ; its anubandhas same as those of Pāņini 25.18, 25 -d 3 ; com. by Bhattoji 4 7 .10; com. by K shīrasvām in in his Dhātuvritti 52.6if ; other writers on Pāņinīya Dhātupātha : viz. Chandra 52.15, 5 2 .n2; Mādh&va or Sāyaņa 52.28; Bhīmasena 53.2 ; Maitreyaraksliita 53.2; and Nāgetśa 53 .3 ; the Chāndra — was incorporated by Durgasiriiha with the Kātantra 52.19, 59-14, 60.10, 60.19; 88.3ff, 9 0 .lfl: ; Jumaranandi revises Pāņinlya— and adoptēs it for his own school 110.3 f ;— of Sau­ padma 112-19 ;— o f Śākat;āyana 71.15 ;— o f Hemachandra 77.21; the genuine—o f Kātantra school in Tibetan tranalation only 90.4 ;— for the Sārasvata, by Harshaklrti 98.14, with a com. on it called TarañgiņI 103-9; the Saupadma— m odelled after P āņini’s 112.32 ; com. Dbātunirņaya on it 113.1.


Sļlstems o f HansArit Grammar
his date 83*16; his sñtrapātha differs from tbe one current in Kāthnīr 83.21f, 87-27, 9-14 ; 85*5ff ; author o f an Uņādipātha 85 ti2, 1)0-1 * , a Śaiva 88*nl, and distinet from his namesake, a Bauddha 88-2, who wrote & com. on his v n tti 88*10, and from other later namesakes o f his 88-llff ; known in Kārimlr much late 91*6. Durgasimha, Bauddha, author o f a com. on Durgasimha’s vritti Durgasiriiha-vntti, com. on. by lUghunandanruśiromaņi 84-26; by another Durgasimha 88*10; other comin. on it §69 ; a com. (anonymous) on it 99*nl. Durgātma ( or D u rga) perhapa a VīiMŚaiva 88-n3, and author o f a Liñgāriusāsana 88-15,88*n3,85*n2 distinef from Durgasimha 88 12; 89*16; 89-29. Durgātma author o f ( Kātantra ) L iñgām m sana 85*n2; different from Durgasimha above 85-n2. Dvārakādā-a alias Dvārika father of Tarkatilaka-bliattāchārya
1 0 2 *21*

Dhātuprakāśa by Bālarāma-pañehānana 114.26.
Dhātuvritti by Kshlrasvāmin 52.6ff; its nature and contents 52.20ff ; — by Mādha'Va or Sāyaņa 52.28. phuņḍhikā on Hernaohandra’s Brihadvritti 78.10; its nature 7 8 ,2 8 ff; its diśputed authorBhip 78.10H; its pr* bable varying voraior.e 78-20 ; — on the last chapter o f the Brihadvritti 78.24ff ; 89-20. phuņdliikā on Durgasimha’s vritti 89.19f.

Dhtmduka, native place of Ilemachandra 73.23.
Dhvanipradlpa 97.9Dialeoṭical peculiarities causes o f shifting clim atic conditions, and promoting study o f grammar 2.29. Dīkshita school 48.nl ; grammatical w crks outside it §33. Dlpa-vyākarana by Chidrūpāśraum 116.7. Dlpikā on H em achandra’fl Bņhadvritti 78.9. Dīpikā or Subodhikā by Clmndra* KTrti, with an important prasa^t) at the end 98.7ff. Dowson 9 9 1 . Dravidasañgha 65*5. Durga different from Durgasimha 88*12 ; 89-16 ; see Durgātma also. Durgāchārya uuthor o f corn. on Nirukta 8 8 1 4 . Durgādāsa author of a com. on Kavikalpadruma 107-2 8 f ; authors quoted by him l07-30ff. Durgapaduprabodha by ŚrTvallabha Vāchanāchārya on Hrmachandra’s Liñgānudūsaiia 80-2f. Durgasimha mentions K ātyāyana as the author of the Uņādisūtras 2 7 ‘4, 27-n2 ; quoted by Vittbalā* < clSryiT’ 4 5 ; inoorporatrs ChSndra Dbātupātha with the Kātantra 52*19, 88-3ff, 9 0 -lff; takes over most of the Pāņinīya paribhāshās 55-12 ; quotod by Hemachandra 7 6 .n2, 88.3 ; says that the Krit* prakaraņa of the Kātantra is by Kātyāyana 84T7ff; Durgasim ha and his vritti §68 ; his vārtikas to the Kātantra 8 7 .n l ; his date 83 16, 88*6 ; not th e first commentator o f Kātantra 83- 17ff;


Dvārika, nth Dvārukādāsa Dvyāśrayam ahākāvya of chandra G6-20; 77-17. E


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

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

Gad® hy Vaidyanātha, a com. on Pāri bhās hend u^ ekhara 50* 13. Gadādh ra son of Trilochanadāša 89*6. Gaisuddin Klulm of M llva 93*7 ; 97-3.

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

G a ņ a v n tti by K s h īra sv ā m in m e n ­ tio ned by Vardlnmāna, 52 l l .
O iu e ś v a ra fa th e r o f P ad m an āb h adatta 111 * 6.

G.ug^.i mentioned b y P ā iiin i 12*n2; mentioned in th e Nirukta 8* n l. Gītngovinda, <om. on, hy Nāgoik.
40* 7. G o ld stu c k e r : P ā ņ iia , H is p lace in S a n s k rit lite ra tu re , on P r im it iv c P rā tiś ā k h y a s 5 *nl ; 23*7 ; on P ā ņ in i’s p a rib h āsh ā s 2 5 - n l ; his v ie w s as to the a u th o rsh ip o f tiic llņ ā d is ū t r r s 26*25 , 2 6 t 3 ; on V ā ja s a n e y i P r ā t iś ā k h y :i 2 9 *n2 * 3 2 * n l; 8 8 *ņ4 ; on P ā ņ in i’s d u te ! 4 * 7, 14 * n lt I 4 *n2 ; 1 9 *n3 ; h is reasons f o r a ss u in in g co n sid e ra b le in te rv a l b ctw ecn P ā ņ in i and K ā ty ā y a n a 2 8 * n l; 5 4 *nl.

G om atasura, a p h ilo so p h ica l w ork in P r ā k r it 7 2 *1 5 G onardTya m e n tio n e d in tho M a liā h h ā sh y a 3 2 * 29 , 3 2 *n2 : quoted hy V ā ts y ā y a n a in tho K ā rn a sū tra 3 3 *n3 , 3 3 * 5. G o ņ ik ā p u tra m entioned »n the M ah ā b h ā sh y a 3 2 -2 9 , 3 2 *n2 ; quoted b y V ā ts y ā y a n a in tlie K ā m a s fitra 3 3 * 5 , 33 *n3 . G o p u la c h a k ra v a rti’s com . o% the Ja u m a ra 110 * 23. !? G o p ā la g ir i’s subodhinT on V ijjstla b h u p a ti’s P rab o d ha-prakādtt 1 1 5 .3 0 . GopTnātha T a r k ā c h ā r y a w rite s sub* com . to S rT p a ti’s supplom ent to K ā t a n t ra 9 0 *1 6 ; 9 0 * 20.

H a im a -D h ltu p ā th a 7 7 *2 1 . H a im a K aum udT b y M e g h a v ija y a m entions B h a t t o ji’s in d e b te d n e ss to H e m a ch a n d ra 46 *2 1 ; o th e rw ise c a lle d C h a n d ra p ra b h ā 79*17 ; its date 79 1 7 . H a im a -la g h u n y ā sa on H e m a o h a n d ra ’ s B n h a d v r it t i 7 9 ‘l f f a b rid g -

4 sļ&

$ystems o f Sanskrit Grammar
47*10; consecrated sūri orāchārya 74-16; attracts attention o f Jayasirhha Siddharāja 74-29; writes Śabdānuśāsana for bim 75*18, 75*nl; converts Kumārapāla 75*8, writes Yogaśāstra at the instance of Kumārapāla 75-16 ; his pilgri­ mage 75*20, and death 75-24; his indebtodness to the A m oghavntti and to Śākat;āyana Śabdānuśā­ sana 76*12, 76-nl ; g iv es the p ra śa sti of his patron in his Brihadvritti 77*3ff; author of Dvyāśruya-mahākāvya 77*17 ; also of ucces8ory tre>tises 77*28, but not of tlie vivaraņas or vrittis on tliein 77*30ff; other works o f H e­ machandra 80*20; does not use pratyāhāras 81*6 ; 89-21. H emachandra’s Śabdānuśāsana one of the works presumably used by Bhattoji 46*22 ; its nature § 58 ; its object 76*6ff; author’s own com. on it 76*17ff ; other comm. and sub-eommentaries on it § 60 ; digests, manuals, and m iscellaneous \vorks § 61 ; the Prākrit chapter from it 76*2; its later independent history 81*l2ff; Dhuņḍhikā on it 78*25; 89*21. Hemādri minister of Mahādeva and patron o f Bopadeva 105*2ff, 105-nl. Hemahañsavijayagaņi vvrites on paribhāshās for Hemachandra’s school 80*3ff ; his Nyāyārtham añjūshā 80*7. Hemanandanagaņi teaeher of Ša­ ha jaklrt-i 100*22. Hirādhara son of Vijjala-bhūpati 115-29. H istory o f Ancient Indian Litera­ ture, by Max Miillor, 4 - n l ; 4-n3 : 9-n l ; 12*nl ; 14-nl. H istory o f Indian Literature by W eber 82*7. Iliuen Tsang, his account about the Aindra school 10-17 ; 19-3. Humayun 93^9. Huņas, Gupta victory over, 58-26.

m ent o f a larger N yāsa 79«2f£. Httima-Iaghuprakriyā by Vinayaviiayagaņi 79 12; com ., Haimaprakāśa, on— 79*1.4. Haimaprakāśa com. on Haimalaglmprakriyā 79*14, its date 79-15, 79-n3. Haima school absorbs Pāņinfya Uņādisūtras 54*8 ; 77 23; see also H emachandra. 11a ñ 8a vi j ay aga ni ’s Śabdārtlmchandrikā 100*27 ; his date 100 30. Haradatta author of. Padamañjarī §26 ; personai details 3 9 T 0 ff; his originul name Sudarśana 40-nl ; his date 40 11; quoled by Vitthalāchārya 45 '20. llaraprasāda Shastri 5 8 ‘8 ; 82*n2. Hārāvali lll* n 2 . Hari, see Bhartrihari. ilaribhadra, see H aribhatta. Haribhatta or Haribhadra fui ber of Kshemendra 97*29. Hari-dīkshita teaeher of N āgeśa 47*19, 48-nl. Hāridravaka mentioned in th c Nirukta 8-n l. Harilllāmrita by Bopadeva 105*12, 105‘n l. Harināmāmrita § 9 6 ; two such grammars 113*16ff ; their te ch ­ nical terms 113*23ff. Harirāma, aBengal Kātantra writer, quoted by Kavirāja 90*14. Harirāma’s com. on Goyīchandra’s vritti 110*20. Harivamśa ( Jain ) 63*21. Harshaklrti pupil o f ChandrakTrti 98-13 ; wrote a Dhātupātha for the Sārasvata with an important p r a ś a s ti a tth e end 98.15, and a com. on it called Tarañgiņ l 103-9 ff. Harshakula teaeher of Udayasaubhāgya 78*26. Harshavardhana 53*20, Haryaksha 35-nl ; 41-20. Hemachandra 57-n2 ; mentions DevanandT as author o f Jainendra 63-22; 66-20 ; 68*31; his LiñgānuElšana based on that o f ŚSkaṭāvana71*22; biographicalm ateriaf of —73-n2, couected by Biihler 73-17 ; his life § 57 ; his birthpkce 73-23; received into order

India; what can it teachus, 41*n3.

General īndex
Indian Antiquary 13; ṇf. ṛ 19-n4; 30-n2; 31-nll 82-13 ; 3 2-nl; 33*n2 ; 35 n2 > , ’37-n2; 41-n3; 6 1 -n l; 04-nl ; 64-14 ; 67-n2 69-9; 69-n2; 7 2 -b l; 72-n3; 7o.iu.
Tndische Studient12*nl ; 33*10. Indo~Aryans, by Rāj. 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 Pāņini’s A shtādhyāyī; spoken of as tbe first of grammarians 10*25, I0*n4 ; quoted by Śākatāyana 70*ṭ, 70*n5; quotṇd by Hemachandra 76*n2. Indra (God) revcals grammar to Jinu 63*4, 63*n2Indradatta said to have ķeen at first a foliower of the Aindra school 10*16; and a contemporary of Pāņini 19*10. Ionian Greeks not always to be identified with ,Yavēnas 15*21 ; their appearance in history long before 1000B.U., 15*30. Ishtis of Patafijali 33*15. 35*3. Idvarakrishņa alluded to in Jain­ endra* sñtras 64*19 ; his 1wo aliases 64*n4. īdvarānanda’s Vivaraņa on Kaiy~ y ata’s PrādTpa 43*3. Itsing’s account of Jayāditya and his work 35*25.
from whoin Śvetām baras borT o w e d it6 3 .n l ; its real author ’ Hevammdl 63.140:, alias Pfijjrapāua 63.25, 64.n2 ; date of its foṭindaiion §48, 64.16ff ; the Jain iidat sūtras ollude to īdvarakrishņu 64.19 ; character o f— grumnn.v §49 it& >v t) versions 65.13fi' ; īts wrfnt o f oriģin ālity. 65.2511, comtnenturioson it67.1žx; its reeast 67.1211 ;its later nogleet and present "latus 67.2Cff ; 68.8 ; 70.5 ; 70-M ; 8^.30 ; 93.26. Juiyyata father of K aiyyata 42.6. Janārdai.a son o f RāmabhaijA 101.18. Jaumara school, absorbs Paņinrya .Uriādisūtras 54.8 ; its name a misnomcr 108 2711 ; its special featun s §87 ; its alternutive name 109.32. Jayāditya his date 35*20 ; men­ tioned by Itsing 35*22, 35-26 ; his work called vritti sñtra 35.23 ; at lea sl a contcraporury of the author of tho Vskyapadtya 35.n2 ; his centri bution to tlie Kādi kā «listingnished from that of Vāmana 36*4, 36.nl ; refevs to Lokāyatikas 36*16, 36.n3 ; pērtot ps same as Jayāplda of liāśm īr 36.19 ; native o f Kāthnlr 36.22. Jayakrishņa supplem ents tbe Tattvabodhinl by a section on svara and vaidikī prakriyā 48.5 ; his date 48.8. Jayakrislm a’s com. o n th e Laghusiddlmntakaumudl 51.11 ; per­ sonai details about him 51,1 lff. Jayanta author of Tattvachandra, an abriḍgraent o f the PrakriyākaumudT 5 1 .n l. Jayantlkāra quoted by H emachan­ dra 76. n2. JavāpTḍa supposed to be pupil o f KsliTrasvāmin 52*2. Jayasim ha II (C hālukya emperor ) alias Vādirāja, fellow -stu dcnt o f I)ayāpāla 72.24if. Jāyasin’fha-Siddharlja patron o f lien - chandra 74*2013:; stories about him and Hemachandra 74*32 ; his death 75.1 ; th e

Jagaddhara, Bhaļ^g, author of Bālabodhinl 91.12. Jagannātha gives personai details about Bhattoji 46.27£f ; pupil of the son of Śeshakrishņa 4712, 48.nl. Jagannātha, author of Sārapradi­ pi kā, quotes Kshemendra 98.1,

100. 6.

Jahangir, Bmperor, 93.9 ; ,102.26; 102.n2. .i . * f . , ■ Jainendra quoted by ņame in Bopadeva’s Mu^dhabc|wba 10.n3 ; 53.n2 ; mentioned %*' Vāmunūchārya 53.31, 53.n2 ṭ Jainendra School §47 ; its traditional author 62.32£ ; its sūtrapā^ha originally

belonged to Digambara Jains,

i7 [Sk.Gr.]

*4,0 y

Šy$tem$ o f Śanskrit šrammaḥ
K achchāyana’s P a li Grammar closely rclatcd to T olkappijatn 11*5; and based on K ātantra 82-10. Kadamba kin gs, Early, C4-23. Kaḍera 16*30. Kāhnu father o f M ādhava 98*20. K aiyyata quotcs from tlie works o f Sp isali and K āśakritsna 10*3, 10*n2 ; 24*nl ; the PadamailjarT based on his Pradīpa 40*7, 40*n2 ; his Pradīpa marking end o f s e ­ cen-1 period in the histroy o f PāņinTya school § 28 ; his probable date 41*29 ; personai d e­ tails about him 42*5f£; quotcd in the Sarva-dar4ana-sañgrah*i 42*21, 42*n2 ; acknow ledges indebtedness to Bhartnhari 42*25; auotcd hy VitthalSclīSrva 45*19 ; 59-21 ; 76*n2. K a 1 kala quoted by Hem achandra 76*n2. Kala, Vaidyanātba's com. on N āg ega’s Vaiyākaraņa-siddhāntam añ jū sh ū 50*15. Kālāpa-dhātusūtra 90*4. Kālāpa grammar sai 1 to agrce w ith the Aindra grammar 10*20 ; also culled Kaumāra and Kātantra 82*22f, 83*9 f. Kalāpaka quoted by H em achandra ^ 76*n2. _ K alāpavyakaraņotpattiprastāva by Vanamāli 82*n2. K alāpin, tbe v eh iele o f Kumāra 83*9. K ālc gurnam c o f N āgoiibhatta 49*34. Kalhaņa 36*20. K ālidāsa 57*22 ; 58*n2; 101*16. K ālikā-sutra 73*nl. K alpasñtras,8am ayasundara’s com . on, 63*2, 63*n2. K a!yāņa, P rince, patron o f Śeshakrishņa 45*29. Kalyāņasaras vati’sL agh usāras vata 103*24f. Kāmā raother o f Bām abhatta
101* 12.

Šabdanuriusona written at his request 75-18. Jina or Mahāvlra, traditional author o f the Jainendra school G2.32f ; 08.4. Jinadattasīiri teaeher o f Amorachandni 80.8. J i n mn an d a n a ’s K urnā ra pāla c h ar i t a 73 .n2. Jinapvabhasūri alias Jinaprafcodha, author o f a com . on Kātantravvitli-pañjikā 80 u2 ; particuliirs about lñm 89.n2. Jiuaprabodha, see Jinaprabhasūri. Jinarutna, see Jinendu. Jinusāgara 78.16. Jincndrabuddlu author o f Nyāsa on K āśikā §25, 7 1 .n l ; I is date 85 n2, 88 12; quoted by Bhāmnhṇ 85.1*2, 88*1811 ; called som etim es Ethavira-lincndra 58.n2 ; etylcs himRclf BodhisattvadeśTyācliārya 88.11 ; n t later than 750 A .D . 88 12 ; quoted by V itthalāchārya 45.20. Jinendu alias Jinaratna author of Siddhāntarotna 102*27. Ji'vngosvātnirPs I larin ām ā iu rita 114.1. Jñānatilaka 103*12. Jñānc neira-saros vati author o f tho TattvabodhinT 47-25. Jfiā pakas 3 5 1 7 , 54.27ff, _54*n2, 56 25 * , see also Paribhāshās. Jodhapur (Yodhapura) 80.1, 8 0 .n l. Jogars j a ’s Pādapr ak ar aņ osañgati 84-20, App. 2 ; m entioned by Mnñkha 84,22 ; assigns the K ā ­ tantra Kritprakaraņu to Śākatāyana 84 24. Journal of the A siatic Society o f Bengal 33*n l . Journal of the Pombay Branch of the 11. A . S. 3 5 .n2. Junmrannndl author of the vritti, RnsavatTon Kramadl4vara’s Sañksbiptasāri 1 0 9 .2 7 ff; th e school roccives nam e (J au m ara) from bira 1 0 8 .2 8 ; and (R ā s a v a ta ) from his vritti 109.32 ; rovises PāņinTya Dhātupātha for his own school 1 1 0 3 f. Jupiter, tw olve year cy clc of, 61*21, 6 4 n 5 .

K ām adhenu bv Bopadeva 68*31 ; quot.es Vardhaināna 88*23; com. on th e author’s Kavikalpadruma 105*11.

General lndex
KfmaBūtra quoteṇ Gonardīya and GonikSpntra 88*5, 33*n3. Kamboja 16*3$. Kahdarpasiḍdhānta’a com. on tho Saupadma 112; 13. Kārākas, treatises on, 55*28. ‘ Kārikāvnli by Nārāy*ņa Bhattā* chārya 116*12. K ārttikeya rcvealed Aindra gnunmar to Saptavarnmn 10*22: nee also Kumāra. Kāśakritsna. founder of a gramma* ticai’school, 9*23 ; his grammar consisted of sūtras in th ice A dhyāyas 10 3, 10*nl |K a iy y a ta quotea from bis grammar 10*4; 10*n2 ; qtioted bv name in Bopadova’s Mugdhabodha P'-7, I0*n3. K āśikā g ives a rule of A p iś li 9*24; te lls that Kāśakritsna’s grammar consisted of sūtras in throc Adhyāyas 10*3, 10 n l ; does not anywhere mention the Aindra school 11*E0 ; 20*8 ; 2 8 * n l; its date 35*20 ; a joint work of Jnyīīditya and Vīīmana §23 ; pcrhaļis sam e as Vnttisūtra mentioned hy Itsing 35*24 ;quotes Vākynpadlva, und so not oovlier than 050 A .D . 35*n2 ; Nyāsu on—hy Jinendrab^uldhi §2 5,35*n2;personality of the authors o f— 36.1 lff ; Bāla'śāstrEs cdition of 8G*n3 ; nature of the— 37*10’ ; quoies a a rule of Apiśali 37 *«8, 9 n3 ; g iv e s a ncw vārtika of tho Sauilāgas 37*11 ; its indebtedness to Chandragomin §24, 62*2,59*21, asascertiiincd by Kiolhorn 37*20; illustratcd 38.nl ; Kāśikā does not ackno\vlec!gc its indebtedneps 38*5, 58*18 ; Harathiifa’s Padamnfrjarl on the K ā śilā § 2 f; 47.13 ; emhodics PāņinTya Gaņapātlia 60’25 ; apparcntly knous the Jainendra G4T7. 64 n3. Kāśikākāra quoted hy Heninehandra 76*u2, Kāśikāvivaranapun-jikā, see Nyāsa. Kāśīnātha author o f Bara, a com. o n tb c Prakriyāknnmudī 46*n l. Kāśīnātha, his Bārasvaia-bhāshya 100* 9ff ; his date 100*13. Kāśīśvara quoted l y Durgadgsa 107*31 ; his •sopplement to the M ngdkalodha 108*10. ^āśT śvara’s com. on the Saupadma 112*13; his G aņapātha to Saufrnclma 113*1 ; com. on it by Rnmākānta 113*2. Ivāśyapa m entioned by Pāriiri 12*n2. Kāsyape author of tho Chāndra recast, Bālāvabodha 62*20. K ātantra, c*losely rolated to Tulko ppiy‘im 11*5 ; a lso rh s PāņinTya U ņ ād isu tras 54*8 ; why so called 81 *^GfT; trnditiom d account of its origin § 64; its date 82*n3, 83-281V ; its tv. o reeensions 87*2511 : F e rg n l cou m. on— §71; its study no . eonfined to a fe w distriets of I'cngul 9 0 3 2 ; its bisfory in K āśm īr § 7 2 ; iricorporates C handra D lm tupīithi 5*2*19 ; lakos o \e r most of the P āņintva p a rilh āsliā s 55*11; 81*7 ; intciṭolutioTis in tk( — S ūtrap āth a § 65 ; 87*170; its early history § 07; 93*2 ; 98*31 : 106*5 ; 110*26*. Kāta ntrav i stn ra , Va r d linu * āna ’s t on i. on Durgasiiiiha’s vritti. 8x8-20 ; a sub-eom. r n it l>y PriihvTv l n ra 88*24. Kātantravritliļjiifijikū, Trilodianad āsa’s com. on Pu rg u s im h a ’s vritti 89*111; suIm on mentaries on it 89 7ff. Iuitliāsaritsāgara acccī.nt a h m l P ānini,'bis picdcc csrors and com teniporaries 10*13iī, 19*9fT; 28*12: 29-7 ; its account a b o il Kātyāy«na 31 3, 31-n l. K nthavato, Prcfesso»*, 63*8, Kātthakyft m eitio ncd in the >’i ukta 8 n l . K āty āy ana 7*17 ; 7*21 ; 7.n2 ; alias V ararm lu 85.nl, said to Tia\e Leon at llrst, a fullovt cr of iho Aindra school 10*15 ; 12 6 ; 14 5 : his knoviledgo of th e Vavnnas more e x a d than that of f ā n in i 16*25 ; 17*4 ; 17 30 ; 18*14 ; trnid to he a eoTitemporary of P ā ņ ini 1910 ; hc p r o h i l l y īc g a r d e d ’lhe U ņādisulia s as P ā ņ i n i ’s 26 18, 2G*nl ; he also p ro b a lļy n ochlied them 26*27 ; rncidicncd as t i c

Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar
sole author o f the Uņādisfitra, by Vimalasarasvati 27*2, 27*nl ; by Durgasimha 27-4, 27*n2; Vārtikakāras b ‘fo. o him 28*5; considerabL m terval betw een him aud Pāņini 27*7, 27*nlt 84*19 ; his date §17 ; his relation with tho Naudas 29*6 ; nature o f his work §18 ; his tirst work, Vājasaneyi Prātiśākhya 29*13 ; extent o f his eriticism ori Pāņini 30/1 ; his criticism also constructiv e 30*9, but in places unjust 30*13 ; did not uniform ly follow • P āņ in i’s torņunology 30*24ffi ; probably belonging to a difīorent school of grammar from Pāņini 31 5 ; called a ‘ southerner ’ by Patafijali 31 *6, 31*n2 refers to Śākatāyana 31*n3, Śākalya 31*n4, Vājapyāyana 31*n5, Vyūḍi 31*nC Paushkarasādi 31*n7, and others 31.u8 ; 38*nl ; 54 21 ; 59.10 ; G9*18 ; 70*14. Kaumāra another naino of Kātantra 83*8. K aum uJī 104*11; see Siddhāntu» kaumudī, Prakriyā-kaumudT, and H aima-kaum udl. Kaum udīkāras as authors o f mod­ ern rovi vai o f Pāņini 90.31. K aushtuki m entioned in the Nirukta 8 u l. K autika, a Jain Tlrtha 98*11. K autillya 32.16. Kautsa m entioned in the Nirukta 8*nl. Kavikalpadruma by Bopadeva vvit.li his o\vn com., Kāmadh'nu, 105 lOf, 108*15(r ; com. by Uurgādāsa 107*29. K avirāja a Beugtl com. on Kātan­ tra 90*13; quote- Trilochanadāsa an 1 is quoted by Harirāma 90*14. K āvyaprakāśa 42*8. Kerala 16*30. Kern : Manual of Buddhism 59*u2. KesarT, artiele in, by Mr. ltajavad<* 17.96*. K eśava, fa th e r o f Bopadeva 104.29; 105*nl. K eśavadevat-arkapauchānanabhattāchārya,s Vyākaraṛadurghatodghāta on GoyIchandra*s com. 110*18, 110.n3. *

Keśavavarņi pupil of Abhayaehandra 7 2 4 3 ; author of a com. on Gomaļ;asāra 72*15.
Kharatara-gachchha 99*1; 100.23. K ielhorn, his ed. of. the Maliābhāshya 7*n2; 11*31 ; 19*27; 27.n 5 ; 30.n2 ;3 1 * n ll ; about Patuñjali being distinet from Gonardlva and Goņikāpntra 33.3 ; on tne indebtednesa o f the K āśikā to Chandragomin 3 7 ’21fl! ; about Bhartrihari’s eom. on the Mahāb h ā sh y a 4 l.n 2 ; doubts e x isten ce of Pujyapāda as a real author 64*1 ff, 66*22; doubts existen ce o f Abliinava Śākatāyana 69.1ff ; 81*nl ; 89.n2 ; 89*n3. KirātārjunTya auoted by Haradatta 39* n3. K īrtivijayagaņi teaeher o f Vinaya« vijayagaņi 79*13. * Koņḍabhatta nephew o f B hattoji 4 8 .1 3 ,48*n l ; author o f Vaiyākaraņabhushaņa 48*nl, 48*14, 55*25Kramadīśvara founder o f th e Jaumara school 1 0830;h is Sañkshiptasāra probably an abridgm ent of Pāņini 108*32f£ ; takes Bhartrihari’s M ahābhāshya-dīpikā for bis modei 109*8 ; his illustrations m ostly from B hattikāvya 109*9; his erudition 109-21; his relation to P āņ in i’s work 109*9f£. Krisbņāchārya, f atber o f Rāmachandra 45*7. Krishņāśrama teaeher o f K shem ondra 97.29. K rislm a-Yajus-Sam hitā anterior to Pāņini 14*12. K riyāratnasamuchchaya o f Gnņaratnasūri 80.12ff, Kshapaņaka’s vritti on U ņādis, ņuoted by U jjvaladatta 54*14* KMtemañkara 102*1 ; father of Lokeśakara 102*13. Kshem endra o f K āśm īr 97*31. Kshem endra’s com. on Sārasvataprakriyā m entions Narendra as founder o f the Sārasvtṭta 95*17fli, 97*27; personai details about him 97.286:; quoted by Jagannātha 97*33 ; criticised by Dhaneśvara 98.2, 99*21; his date 98*5f.

Kshemendratippana-khaņḍana hy Dhaneśvara 98*3,

Gtntraļ Index
Kshlrasvāmin author of f Dhātuvritti 52*lff ; personai details afcotti him 52*1#; his date &2*4ff; his works 52*$ft'; quotes Chāndra DhStupStha 52*16, 60*18 ; quoted l>y Hemachandra 76*n2 ; by vitthalāehārya 45*19.
KshTratarañgiņT by Kshlre^vām in 52*9. Kulachandra quoted by Bamadāsa 90*15. K um ara, reveals tho Kaumār» or Kālāpa or K ātanLa grammar 83-gff. Kumāra pāla 7 5 .2 ff his convorsion by Hemachandra 75*8, the them e o f Vatśaķpāla’s drama Mobarājaparajaya 759*11; requeBts Hemachandjra to write the Yoga^astra 75*16 ; his pilgrim age 75*19, and death 75*25 ; 81*4. Kum&rapālacharita by Jiram aņḍana 73* n2. Kumārasambhava 105*1. Kumārila 27.n5. K uņaravādava mentionod by Patañjali 31*nl0Kuni, mentioned by Patafijali 31*nl0. Kutśala commentator on Kātantravritti-pañjikā 89*8.


Laghubhāshva on the Sārasvata, by Raghunātna 103* l f . Laghusārāsvata o f Kalyāņasarasvati 103*24. Laģhu-siddhāntachandrikā by Rāacmhandrāśraraa 102’20, 103*22. Laghu-siddhāntakamnudī of. Yaradarāja, an abridgment o f the SiddhāntakaumudT 51*4; com. by Jayakrishna 51*11 ; 62*21 ; 72*27. Laghuvritti by Chhichhubhatta 9M9*. Laghuvritti-tśabdānu^Ssana-rahasya another name for abridgment o f Ileraachandra’s Brihadvritti Lahaur same as anoient SālStura, the native place o f Psņini 19*2.

Lakehtaldhara father o f Bhattoji , 46*23, 48-nl. taEshmīdhara son o f Rāmabhatta 101*17. G akshuldharāchS^a son of Vitļihalāchārya 45*23. Lakshi;.lvallabha:s UpadetśamSlākarņikā 63*3. Liebich, Bruno, editor of ChSndra *vySkanua 36*ñl ; 58*9 ; his paper on the date of Chandra­ gomin and KālidSsa 58*n2; 59.n2; 60*11. Liñgakārikāl or TiiñgānuSSsana of Chandragomin 60*12. Liñgānuśāsana, PsņinTya, com. by Bhattoji 47*10 ; by Rārnachandra 53*16 ; other writer$ on— 53*20ff; Vāmanāchārva’s — 53*29:8: ; — of Chandragomin 27*15 ; 60*12 ; referred to by VāmanSchārya 53*29, Ujjvaladatta, and Rāyamukuta 60*20;— of Śākatāyana 71*16, basis for Ilem aehanara’s work 71*22, 7 7 * 2 5 ;— of Hemachandra77*23,77*nl ,with vivaraņa or vritti on it 77*31 ; and w ith a Durģapadaprabodba on it 80*2f ; by Durgātma (Kātantra) 85*n2, 88*n3 ; 89*29. Lokānanda, drama by Chandragoinin ( ? ) 61*6. Lokedakara’s T attvadlpiks on the Siddāntachandriks 102*14ff ; its date 102*16.

Mādhava or Sāyaņa author o f the Dhātuvritti 52*28:8:; 107*10. Mādhava, a commentator on the Sārasvata-prakriyā 98*20fE; his date 98*23. Mādhava, a writer on Sārasvata, 103*15, his date 103*17; 103*nl. MādhavTya-Dhātuvritti 52*26 ; quotes Haradatta 39*17 ; quotes Slradeva 55*6. Madhyamikā besieged by Menander 32*23.

™ 4’

Lakshmeśvara 65*6. Lakshmldevl patroness of Vaidyanātha 50*6.

Madhya-siddhāntakaumudldf Varadarāja, an abridgment o f the Siddhānta-kaumudl 51*4; com* by Rāmatamanfc 51 •10*


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar
Maitreyarakshita m entioned as a writer on roots by Sāyaņa 53*2. M alayagiri’s Śabdānuśāsana w ith his own com . 80*31ff ; his date Mallinātha, his commentary on th e Śiśupālavadha 27 * n 3 ; quotes Padam añjan 39*18 ; quotes Bopadeva in his com. of the Kumāra 104*33f; quotes a Chāndra rule 57*21, 57*n2. Mammata 42*811; 42*nl. Maņdana commentator on the Sārasvata-p*akriyā 98*2711:; personai details about him 98*28ff; patronized by Alpasāhi of Mālva 99*9. Mañgarasa author o f a com. on the Chintāmaņi 72*7. M āņikyadeva on P āņinlya Uņādisūtraa 54*17. Maņiprakāśikā by Ajitasçnāchārya, a com. on the Chintāmaņi 72*6. Mañkha author o f ģrlkaņtha-charita 84 22. Manoramā, see Prauḍhamanoramā. AlanoramākuchamardinT o f Jagannātha g iv e s some personai detailḍ about. P lialtoii 46*28ff, 47*nl. Mantras, Sceis of, C*nl. Alanu mentioned in the Nirukta 8 -n i. Mannai b f Puddhisiu by Kern 59*n2. Manuals, lesser, § 98 ; characteristic o f the d ed in in g age o f a school 115*11. Matisāgara teaelier <f D aylpāla 72*24. Mautii fam ily 48*4 ; 51*12. Mauryas, their linancial cspedient mentioned by Patafijali 32*25. Afaxima of interpretation, see Paribhāshā. Max Miiller, H istory o f Ancicnt Indian Literature 4*nl ; 4*n3 ; 4*28 ; on intioduction o f art o f w riting 4*28 ; 9*nl ; 011 P ānini’s date 14*3; 15*3 ; 28*15. Medes not unknovni to Indians hefore A lexander’s invasion 15*33. M idinī lll* n 2 . Megha father o f Trilochanadā^a 89*6. Meghadūta, M allinātha’s com,. Ou 57*22.

Māgha about authorship o f Uņādisūtras 27*6 ; quoted by Haradat­ ta 39*n3. Mahābhārata,JHJhlshmaparvan*16*8. M ahābhāshyaed. o f Kielhorn 7*n2 ; 9*20; does nowhcre mention the Aindra scbool 11*30 ; 13*20; 14*n2 ; g iv es name of P āņ in i’s mother 19*8; 19*23; 19*n3; 22*nl ; 23*nl ; 24-n l ; 25*25 ; 25*n5 ; g iv es a stanza from tbe PjtņinTya Śikshā 27*15, 27*n5 ; Bhartrihari’s commentary on— 27*n5,41*C>,41*23,109*8; mentions Śloka vārtikakāras 28 •4; K i el horn ’s N otēs on 30*n 2,311*n l; describod a<i a* summary of the Sañgraha o f Vyāḍi 31*n9 ; describes Kātyāyana as a 1 southerner ’ 31; 6, 3l* n 2 ; mentions a number of vārtikakāras fo llow iu g Kātyūyana 3 l* n l0 ; 32*5 ; mentions (4onardIya and Goņikāputra32*29, 32*n2; detailed exposition of data in —found in Indischc Studien 33*10 ; tex t of th e — , traditions about, 33*241f, 41*18; does not notice ali sūtrās o f Pāņini 34*3 ; fan cifu l explanation o f this fa ct 34*nl ; it mārks end o f the first period in the liistory of Pāņinīya school §21, 56*13 ; Chintāmaņi on— , by Dhaneśvara 100*2. Mahābhāshya-ehintāmani of Dhaucśvara 100*2. Mahābhāahya-pradlpa as the basis of Ilaradatta’s PadamañjarT 40*7, 40*n2 ; its e lf indebted to Bhartrihari 42*24 ; commentaries ou, it by N āgjibhatta, Nārāyaņa, Jśvarānanda, and others 43*111. Mahābhāshya-pradipoddyota of Nagojibhatta 43*2 ; 49*10 ; a com. on it by Vaidyanātha, called Chhāyā 50*13. Mahadova father o f Vaidyanatha ' 50*6. Mahādeva, author o f Sabdasiddhi, on Durgasimha’s vritti 89*10. M ahsdeva tho Vādava king o f Dcvagiri 105*3. MahāvTra, see Jina. M a h o 4 w a precoptor of K aiyyata 42*7. Mahldhara 102*1. Maitreyarakahita 39*nl.


šm e ta i Žndex.
Megharatna’s Sārasvata vyākaraņadhuņḍhfkf or Sjlrasvjatadiņikā 09*14ff. M eghavijaya tells o f lUm ttoji’s indebtedncss to lloiUachandra


M oghavijaya author of Haimakaumudl 79*1811. Menander, his sicge m m iioned by Patafijali 32*24. Merutuñgttcbārya’s Prabantihachintāmaņi 73*n2. M iscellaneous E ssays by Colebrooke

68-nl; 114-nl.
Mitāksharā (grammar) Annambliatṭa ’s com. on P āņini ’b Abhtādh yāyī 50*24. * Mitāksharā (law ) the Vyavahārakāņḍa from it commented upon by Vaidyanātha 50*9. Mitra, Rājendralñl, on the Identi­ fication of Vavanas with Icnian Greeks 15*21 ; shows that Patarījali is not same as Gonardīya or Goņikāpntra 33*2. Mohana Madhusudana brolhcr o f Tarkatilakabhattāchārya 102*23.

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

108* 11.

Nandasundora 78*17. Nandisañgha Pattuvuli 64*7. C4n*2. Narahari’s dālāvabodlia 116-lGff. Narasiriiha father o f Kāmabhatta
1 0 1 *1 2 .

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

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

Nāge&t, see Nāgojibhatta. Nāgojibhatta speaks o f Santanavāchffrya as relativelv modern author 27*n4; his Uddvota on K aiyyata’s Pradīpa 43*1; his com. on th e Prauḍhamanoramā 47*18, and on the Ādhyātma-Rāmāyaņa 47*21 * , his cotnmentary on Bhat­

Nārāyaņa’s vivaraņa on K aiyyata’s Pradīpa 43*2. Nārāyaņabhārati 101*35. Nārāyaņa Bhattāchārya’s Kārikāvali 116*12. “ Nārendra or Narendrāchārya m en­ tioned as founder o f Sārasvata by Kshemendra 95*18, by Amritabhārati 95*22; by vitth alachārya 95*24. Nighaņtu 6 * n l; com mented upon by Yāska’s Nirukta 8*5. N ighaņtu-vritti by Kshīrasvāmin, quoted by, Devarāja 52*10. Nllakantha Śukla, pupil o f Bhattoji 47-n2, 48*nl. Nipātāvyayopasargavritti by K shīrasvāmin 52*8. Nirukta o f Yāska, its date §6; 7*9; its nature §7; teachers and schools referred to in it 8*nl; introduetion to, by Pandit 8atyavrata Sāraa^raml 14*17; 25*25; 25*n4; quotes Śākaṭāyana 68*25; com. on, by Durgāchārya 88*14. Niruktanirvachana by Devarāja 52*10. Niryukti 73*nl. Northern school mentioned by Pāņini 12*n2. Nrisimhāchārya father o f V ijļhalāchārya 45*22.

Systm s o f Sanskrit Grammar
N jā sa on K āśikā by Jinendrabuddbi 35*n2, §25; othervvise known as K āśikā-vivaraņa-pañjikā 38*9; not a single e ^ tio n or a cornplete manuscript o f it in existence 39*1, 39*ln ; said to have been comm ented upon by M aitreyarakshita 39*nl; 71*nl; quoted (?) by Hemachandra 76*n2. Nyāsas (th ree) on Hem achandra’s Brihadvritti, the first identifies most o f Hemachandra’s quotations 76*n2; second by Udayachandra 79*2, w ith an abridgment which traces most o f Hem achandra’s quotations 76*n2; 79*311; 76-21; and the third anonymous Nyāsa called Śabdamahsrņava 79*7. N yāsa on the Śākatāyana-Sabdāmrśāsana 39*nl; quoted ih Mādhavlya Dhātuvritti 71*31 ; quoted by H em achandra'7 6 *n2. Nyāsa,;a com. on the Amogha-vritti quoted by Prabbāchandrāchārya 72*2. Nyāsa o f Ugrabhuti on Jagaddhara’s BālabodhinI 91*13. Nyāyapañchānana’s com. on GoyL chandra’s vritti 110T 7ff. Nyāyārthamañjushā o f Hemahañsavijayagaņi 80*7; its date 80* n2. Padmanābhadatta founder o f th e Saupadma school 111*2 ; personai detail s about him 11 T 2ff ;different from the author o f the P m h od arādivritfi 111*8 ; his d ate*lll*15; the arrangemeot o f his work 111 *n4; nis own com. on it called Saupadmapañjikā 112*11 ; his other works 112T9ff, ll2 * n l. . Padmanābhadatta, author o f Prishodarādivritti, different from the founder o f Saupadma lll* 5 ff. Padmapurāņa 100*4. P āhiuī mother o f Hemachandra 73*25 ; gives her son over for religious Service 74*7. Palhavas, see Parthians. Pāņḍya king, the Tolkappiyam read before, 11*3. Pañchatantra story about P āņini’s death by tiger 19*15, 19*n2. Pañchavastu, recast o f Jainendra 67*14ff ; its introductory part interpolated 67*20. Pāņini, 3*nl ; his tenninology pre­ šu pposed by present Prāt,iśākhyas 5*2 ; — , H is place in Sanskrit literature, by Goldstucker, 5*nl ; his t©rminology compared with that of Yāska 6*n2 ; objections to his being placed after Yāska considered 7 *6ff; his system based on Vāska’s tlieory o f the verbal origin o f every noun 9*3 ; 9*Gff ; uses technical words and formulas of earliar writers, some of whom came after ITāska 9*14 ; 9*n2 ; 10*n3 ; said to have supplanted the Aindra school 10*15; as also other schools 62*26 ; does not any-where mention Indra by name 10*11, nor the Aindra school 11*28 ; 12*6 ; the school o f— §§1,0 to 41; authors quoted by— 12*n2 ; his date §11 ; posterior to Yāska 14*14 ; must have known som e form o f Grihva and Dharma Sūtras 14* n S ; placed even before Yāska by Pandit Satyavrata Ssraaśrami 14*18; usually but without snfficient evidence assiçned to 350 B .p. §121; lived prior to A l e s a n t e V invaaion'

Oka, Shastri, editor o f Ksliīrasvāinin’s com. on Araarakosha 52*nl; 57*n2.

Padama brother o f Vāhaḍa and m inister to Alpasāhi 99*6. Padamañjarī o f Haradatta §26; quoted in th e M ādhavīya Dhātuv ņ tti and by Mallinātba 39*18; quotea Māgha 39*18, 39*n 3; auotes Kirāta and Bhattikāvya 39*n3 ; based upon K aiyyata’s Mahābhāshya-pradlpa 40*7,40* n2, 43*7. Padapātha o f Śākalva 4*17 ; 6*nl. Padma-(or Rudra-) kumāra, father of Haradatta 39*11.

č e n e ra l īn d e x
17*19 ; liv e d prior to 700 , B. C. 18*3; 18*16; onJy tt negative conclusion about his dataposeible 18*27; tbe known facts about his life §13 ; Sālāturlva an alias o f — 18*34 ; bis motneris name, Dakshl 19*8,19*nl; his teacher said to be Varsha 19*11; has the fourteenpratyāhāra sūtras rovealedto him 19*13, 23*18 ; story ābout his death by a tiger 19*14, 19*n2 ; character o f Pāņini’s \vork §14 ; his contribution to philology in the Uņādisūtras 21*31 ; the technical devices used by him §13 ; his method o f indicating adhikāra-sūtras 24*n2 ; his Paribhā­ shās 25*4; his Dhātupātha S 5 T 4 f f ; his Gaņapātha 23*24, 24*2ff, 25*20 ; ree sons for assigning m ost of the Uņādisūtras to his authorship 26-7Š ; his Vārtikakāras pp. 28-32 ; considerable interval separātos him fromK ātyāvana 27*7, 27*nl ; criticised by K ātyāyana first in the Vājasaneyi Prāti4ākhya 2 9 1 6 , and later in the Vārtikas 29*20 ; his terminolo g y not strictly adlwred to by K ātyāyana 30*24ff; 38*nl ; Sicldhāntakaumudī the raogt popular introduetion to his grammar 46*11 ; he tacitly ©mployed many Paribhāshās current before him 54*21, 54*nl ; history o f his school, review o f, §41 ; 56 7 ; three stages in tho later history o f liis school 5 6T lf£ ; 59*9 ; 65*28; 69*nl ; 69*18; 69*n3; 70*nl-5 ; 71*1; 75*30; 76*n2 ; 81*28 ; 86*21 ; 86*28 ; 86*30 ; 87*4 ; raodern revival o f Pānini 90*31 ; 107*4 ; 92*16 ; 93*1 ; 93*27 ; later attempts to improve upon him 105*17 ; 105 22 ; 109*1 ;

111*20; 112*1.

P āņini, the poet, qiioted in Vallabhadeva’s Subhāshitāvali and indentified with Pāņini the graramarian 13*10. Paribhāshās o f Pāņini and o f later grammarians 25*4 ; 25*nl ; no ancient collection has come down 27*19 \ oom m only aseribed to V y » ļ ļ T * i L 54*23 ; invention o f the sjstṇ m o f— i 35*10 ; ParibhĶ

shās and Jñāpakas elaborated betweeo 4 7 0 -6 5 0 A. D. 35*17, 54*27fE, 54*n2f 56*25 ; § 40 ; P spini tacitlv em plcyed many — current before him 64*21, 54*nl ; P āņinlya paribhāshās borrowed by the Kātantra and other nonPāņiniya schools 55*10; PāribhāRhā-sutra by Śākatāyana 71*14 ; o f Hemachandra 77*26, collected by Bem ahañsavijayagani 80*4#; iṛm e for Sārasvata 94*11, 1 0 3 $ * , acellection o f — by GoyIchandra 110*15 ; o f Sau­ padma same as P āņini’s 112*30; 112*19. Paribhāshāvritti (to Mugdhaboda) by Rāmachand ra- vidyābhūs hana 108*21. Paribhāshāvritti ( Saupadma ) o f Padmanābhadatta 112-211T. Paribhāshenduśekhara by N āgojibhatta 49*1 lfl*, with the autlior’s com. called Śabdenduśekhara 49*14,55*7; cora.on it called Gadā by Vuidyanātha 50*13 ; other commentaries 55*9. Purisliads, rules for, fnuned, 4*10. Parivrājakas mentioned in th e Nir­ ukta 8*nl. Pārshadas mentioned in the N ir­ ukta 8*nl. Paraus, see P ersians. Parthians not unknovvn to Indians even before Alexander’s invasion 15.33. Pātañjala-charita gives a fan cifu l explanation o f the f act that the Mahābhāshya does not notice ali sūtras o f Pānini 34-n l. Patañjali 12*6 ; 13*23 ; 14*1 ; 14*n2; 17*4 ; 18*11 ; giv es the name o f P āņini’s mother 19*8 ; 24*13 ; 26 n l ; 27*21 ; quotes cērtam metrical Vārtikas preceding those of K ātyāyana 28*4; m entions a number o f Vārtikakāras follow ing K ātyāyana 3 l* n l0 ; his date and personai history §20 ; main arguments for assigning hi«i to 150 B.C. 3 2 * 1 ; speaks o f P ugkpamitra as his conteiṇpprary 32*21; refers to a eiege o f Menander 32*24 ; mentions a fih&ācial expedient o f the Mauryas 32.25 ;

18 fSk. Gr.]


Sysiem 0 / Sanskrit Grammit
66*n3. Prabhāchandra author o f Prabhāvakacharltra 73*a2. Prabhāchandrāchārya author o f a N yāsa on Am oghavritti 72*1. Prabhāvakacharitra by Prabhāchandra and Pradyumnasūri 73*n2. PrabodhachandrikS by Vijjala-bhupati 115*22£E; com. on it by Gopālagiri 115*30Prabodhaprakāśa, a Śāiva grammar by Bālarāmapañchānana 114.12, U4*19fiE. Pradlpa, 8$e Mahābhāshya-pradlpa. Pradyum nasun reviser o f Prabhāchandra’s Prabhāvakacharitra 73*n2. Prākrit literature, grow th of, as affccting developm ent o f Sanskrit 34*20. Prakriyākaum udl o f ltāmachandra S30 ; the modei’ for B hattoji’e Siddhānta-kaumudT 45*10; comm ented upon by Vitt.halSchārya in the Prasāda 45*14 ; by Śeskakrishņa in tho Prakāśa 45*25 ; and by othcrs 46*n l ; an, abridg­ ment of it by author’s pupil 5T ii 1 ; 72*21 ; 109*3. Prakriyamaņi by Dhaneśvara 100*3. Prakriyāprakāśa o f Śeshakrisbna 45*25. * Prakriyaśañgraha o f Abhayachandra, recast o f Śākatāyana Śab­ dānuśāsana 72*11. Prasāda o f Vitthalāehārva 45*14 ; its date 45*16 ; quotes Narendrāchārya 95*24. Pratāparudra o f Telufigaņa 101*10* Prātiśākhyas, prim itive, presuppose art o f writing 4*30 ; present — post-PāņinIya 5*2 ; their eontribution to Science o f grammar 5*1 O lī; their technical terms identifiod by Dr. Burnell vrith those o f Aindra school 5-n2t 82*13 ; show Vaska ija the raaking 5*19 ; 6 * n l; 9*n2 ; closely related to Tolkappiyam 11.6, and to K stantra 82*13 ; 12*6 ; 66-U2, 8 6 * n l; Vājasaneyi PrātiśŚkbva th e first gramiuatical work o f KStySyana, tee under V ājasaneyi.

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

69*18; 76*n2; 103*3.
Pathak, professor, 10-nl ; 14*n2 ; 3 9 .n l ; proves the historical existenoe o f P ñjyapsda G4*6fT ; his paper on Jaiua Śākatāyana 84.14; 69*8fE, 76*nl ; his arguments for th e date o f Jainendra 64*16f£ ; 65*n2 ; 67*24; 72*nl ; 72*nS ; 72 *n3. Patrapuñja 45-29. Pauranic accouhts o f frontier tribog not rnere im aginative fabrications 16*6. Paushkarasādi mentioned by Kātyāyana 31*n7. Pāyaguņḍa, sec Vaidyanātha Pāyaguņḍa. Persians not unknown to Indians before A logun ders invasion 15*33 ; mentioned as raercenuvy tighters by Pāņini 17*24 ļ blotted out as a political po\ver in 329 B.C- 17*26. P eterson on P ā n in i’s date 13.511; 13*n2; 46*n3 ; 53*n2 ; 54*1 ; 65*4 ; 67*n2 ; 79*n5 ; 89*n2. P hilology, scienoe of, revolutioniz©d by discovery o f Sanskrit by modern Europe 2*24 ; its postulate Yāska’s theory o f the rootorigin o f every noun 9*4. P hitsūtras of Śāntanavāchārya 27*12, 27*u4. P bonetics, hianuals on, 4.12P iseh el on the identitioation of Pāņini th© grammarian and P ā­ ņini the p o eī 13*10. Plataafie 16*2. Prabandha chintāmaņi by Merutuñg ich ā ry a 73*n2. PrabandhakoŚa by Rājaśekhara 73*n2. Prabhā, Vaidyanātha’s com. on Bhatļioji’s Śabdakaustubfia 50*15. PrabhKchandra quotecf by Pfijvapsda 66* n t ; attem pt to prove that th e name is ftctitious §6*18;

Gentral lnd*x
Pratyāhāra sūtras, fourteen. re* vealed to Pāņini t by Ood Śiva 10.13 ; 2 2 4 5 ; means to producē brevity and terseness 23.26 ; Vsjasaneyi-Prāti4ākhya Pratyāliārus same as P iņ in i’s 29*n2; their number reduced by Chandragomin 69*15; Pāņinlya — retaihed by Jainendra 66*5 ;—o f Śākatāyana 70-13;—o f Malayagixi.Sl*6; — not used by Hemachandra 81-6; Pāņinlya — dispensed with by Kātantra 8 6 * 2 3 f; their upe without its by the Sārasvata 04*5 ; 118*23 ; — o f Bopadeva 106*6, — called Saniāhārasūtrna 106*23 o f Pāņini retaiued by Saupadma 111 *2i. Prauḍha-manoramS BhaU oji’s own com. on the Siddhānta-kaumudī 47.7 ; distinguishes betweon the two authors of the Ks&kā 3 8 -n l^ acknow!edges indebteuness to Rū pamala 46*nl ; dovs seunt justice to ṭhe rnemory of Śeshakrishņa 47*1 ; its abridgment called Bāla-manonimā 47*8; Jagannātha’s com. on it called the Manoramākuchamardinl 47*18 ; another com. on it by Nāge4a called Śabdaratna 47*18, 49*16 ; 107*7. Piishodarādivvitti o f Padmanlībhadatta 111-8; its date 111*9, ll!* n l. Pritbvldhara, Mahāmahopādhyāyft5 author o f sub-com, on Vardharnāna’s Kātantra-vistara 88*21. Pūivapāda an alias o f Devanandl 63*25 ; 64*n2; mentioned as the founder o f a Draviḍa-sañgha 65*4 ; possibiiity o f other namesakes of his 65*10 ; 69*20 ; 70*8. PundarTfeāksha writes sub-com. to Sripati’s supplement to Kātantra 90*21. Puñjarāja the earliest com. on the Sārasvata-ņrakriyā 96* 15 ; per­ sonai details about him 96*33ff : his date 96*16, 97:7 ; his works 97*8f ļ 99*nl. Puņyasundlragaņi 79*24ff.


probablj Patañjati’s own patron 32*28. *


Racea, impact of different, as in ­ flu e n c e ; study o f grammar 2*31. Ragbfcnandanaili romāni 84*25Rftghunātlm author of the Laghubhāshya on the Sārasvata 103*1 ; pupil o f Bliaptoji 103*6. RaghunSthabhattn father o f Jayakriahua 48.4 * 51*11. Rājadhanyapura 79*n2. Rāja4ekhara*sPrabandhako4a73*n2. Rājatarañgiņlaccount o f thevicisaitndes in the text o f the Maltābhāshya 13*27, 13*n 5 ; 33*25, 41*17. Rajavade, Vishvantb. K ., his paper on Pāņini’s date 17*9 If. Bujen Iralāl Mitra on the Identifica­ tion of Yavanas with lonian Greeks 15*21 ; shows that Patañjali is not the same as QonardIya or Goņikāputra 33*2. Rāmabhadra-nyāyflañkāra 107-32. Rāmahhatta’s Vidvat-pradodhinl 101*3 ; personai details about the author 101*0 H ; his works


Purusbotfama 97 23.
Pttrushottamadeva’s vritti on Uņādi quoted by Ujjvaladatta 54*15.

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

Rāmabhattl, see VidvatprabodhinT. Rāmachahḍra’s Prakriyākaumudl §30 ; his date 45*6 ; personai de­ tails about him 45*6 ff. Rlmaohandra, commentator on Kātantravnttipañjikā 89*8 ; 90*16. Rāraachandra’s couimentary on the Saupadma 112*14. Rāmachandra-chakravarti vrritea sub-com- to SrlpatPs supplement to Kātantra 90*20. Rāmacbandrā4rama’s Siddhāntachandrika 102*11 ; commentaries on it 102*13 ff ; the author’s own abridgment o f it 102*19. Rāinadāsa 90*15. Rāmadeva the Yādatji king o f Devagiri 105*4. Ramākānta’s com. on SanpadmaGaņapātha 113*2. Rāmakṣra grandfather o f l*oke&kara 102*14. Rāmakrishņāchārya graṇdfathṣṛ of VittHalāchSrya 45* 22*


t 4*

Systtms of Sanskrit Grammar
com. on the A»hṭādhyāyt 47*12 ^ pjrobably not completed by the aathor 47*14, 47*n3 ; com. on it called Visbaml, by N āgeśa 49*18 ; another com. called Prabliā, by Vaidyanātha 50*15 ; 107-7. Sabdamahārņava-nyāsal an anonymous com. on Hem achandia’s Brihadvritti 79*7. Sabdānutoana o f Hemachandra presumab]y utilised by Bhattoji for his Siddhāntakaumudl 46-22. Śabdānufśāsana of Malavugiri 80*31 ff. Śabdānuśāsana of Šākalñyana (Jaina) not a very ancient work 26-3 ; later than Jainendra 68-9; meant for Śvetāmbaras G8T3 ; mentioned in the Gaņaratnamahodadhi 68*16 ; in the Mādhavīya-Dhātuvritti G8-17 ; commentaricfl on it G8-14 ; accesBory treatises on it G8-14; not the same as ancient Śākat,āyana § 52 ; proof for this 69 n l ; quoted as abhin aaa by Bopadeva 08-31. Śabdāmiśāsana-Bnhad vritti, Hema­ chandra’s com. on his own Ś'ibdāniitśāsana 76-17 ; three dilf-'rent N yāsas on the same 76-21, 79-2, 79-7 ; its quotations mostly identified by the first Nyāsa 76-2 ; contains Siddharāja’s ņras'asti 77*3 if; its abridgment perhaps by Hemaohandra him self 76*8 ; comprehends also accessory treatises of the school 77-28; phuņḍhikā on it 78-6 ft ; a Laghu-nyāsa on it 79*1. Śabdaratna, N āgoji’s com. on the Prauḍhamanoramā 49-16; a com., , Bhāvaprakāśikā, on it by Vaidyanātha 50-15Śabdārthachandrikā by H añsavija. vagaņi 100-27. Sabdusiddhi, Mabādava’s com. on Durgasiriiha’s vritti 89*10. Sadānanda’s SubodhinI 102* 14f. Sages, the three, 34*11.» Sahaj aklrti ’s Sārasvataprakriyāvār­ ti ka, 100*21 ff ; his date 100*24, 100-nl. Sāhi Salem, emperor o f Delhi, honours Chandraklrti 98*17 98*nl.

Rāmānanda quoted by Durgādāsa 107*30.
Rāraadarman’s com* on the MadhyaSiddhāntakauiņṇdl 51*10. Rāraasimha patron o f NāgojibhaUa 50*1. Bftmlrfraina, see Bhanudlkshita. Rāmatarkavāgl^a, commentator on Mugdhabodha 107-24; his supplement to Mugdhabodha 108-10 ; his Uņādikotia 108*22. Rañgāciiārjra’s edition o f Śañkara’s Sarvasiddhānta-sañgraha 105'n3. Rafigoii-dīks hita brother o f Bhaṭṭoji 46-24 ; 48*nl. Raaagañgādhara 49-27. Rāsavata another name for the Jau­ mara school 109-32; quotedin Bharata’s com. on Bhaṭt.ikāvya 110*1. • RasavatI JumaranandI’s vritti on Kramadldvara’s Sañkshiptasāra 109*31. Rāshṭrakūta 69-15. Ratalāma 79-n3. * • Ratnākara 101*35. Rāvamukuta mentions Chāndra Liñgānuśāsana 60 20. Recasts o f Ashļ;ādbyāyl § 29 ; 57*2. Rigveda, grammatical speculationg in 1-25 ; its Sarahitā anterior to Pāņini 14*12. Roman conqueat, infiuencihg study o f Greek grammar 2-n2. Royal Asiatic Society, the Bombay Branch, Journal of, 35*n2. RūpagDBvāmin'e Harināmāmritam 113*17. Rupamālā o f Vimalasarasvati m en­ tions Vararuchi alias Kātyāyana as author o f Uņādisūtras 27*nl ; it is a recast o f Ashtādhyāyt 44*2 ; its date 44*5, 44*n l 5 iti arrangement of topics 44*6 ft. ; in* debtedness to it acknowledged by Bhattoji Drkshita 45*nl. Rūpaiiḍdhi, an abridgment o f SSk a ṭlja n a Sabdānutiāsanu, by Dayāpāla 72-23.

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

G m & al in & t*

i# t

Saiva grammars 114-1® tī­ šāk ā 16-31; 17-31 ; 18-12; tee also Scythiana 18TB. Ś lk alya, Padapātba b yt 4*18; men­ tioned in th e Nirukta 8 n l ; mentioned by P āṛini 12*u2 , quoted by K ātyāyana 31*n4. ŚakapGni mentioned in tbe Nirukta 8 .n l. ŚākatSyana (aneient) quoted by name in Bopadeva’s M ugdhabo’ dha 10*n3 ; mentioned by Pānini 12*n2, 68*25 ; often considered author o f tho Uņudlsūtras 25*24 ;

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

pād*. 66*n2.

Samantabhaci» a s ṭ i p ļ aņi on the Chintāmaņi 72*7/ Sam&sackakra 51*17. Sāmaśramr, Satyavratu, on P āņini’s date 14* i t . Samavasundaiasñti’s com. on the Kaipasutrns 63*2, 63*n2. no work o f the atdejot Śakn£āSamhits, Taittirlya, grammatical yana now extant 26*5 ; quotcd by speculations in, 2 2; the language K ātyāyanā 31*n 3; mentioned in o f Saiiihi M different from that of the Mahābhāshya 25*n5, differ­ Brāhmaņas, 3 9 ; the Sum hitl» of ent from later ( Jaina ) Śnkaļ-aHik, Sama, and Krishņa*Yajus yana § 52 ; 80 31 ; 81*8; crulited anterior to Pāņini 14* 12with the authorship of the Krit Bangula, a town dtstroyed by prakaraņa as incorpotated in tlie Alexander aiM raentipned by Kātantra 84*24, 87*20. Pānini 17*llff. Śākatāyana (Jain ) Prof Patlmk’s Sañghopati or Bañghtśvcra 98*29 ; paper on, 64 14 ; 64-n4 ; his 99*8. date 65*1, 69 12 ff ; his inSañgralm, an extensive work o f clebtediess to Jainendta 65*2; Vyā(ļi 31*18, and described as also author o f the Amogbavritti the basis for Muhābh«shya 31*n9. Sañiñās, sce Technical terrns. 69*13 ; was a Śvetāmbara Jain Ssñltala, see SaDgala. ?3*nl ; nature o f his ŚabdānuSañkala, Prince who founded the bāšana §53; draws fr ee ly upon (ity of Bangala 17*13. the Jainendra 69*20; many o f his Śañkarāchārya’s Sarvasiddbāntasñtras same as P āņini’s 69*22, sañgraha edited by Eañgāohārya 6 9 'n3, or on!y slightly changed 70*1, 70*nl ; indebtedness to 105*n3; his Śārlra-bhāshya 38*22* Śañkhabasti insription 65*6. Chandragunin 70*2ff, 70 n2 ; t.> Sāñkbya-kSrikās 64-20. Jainendra 70*5, 70*n3, 70 n4; Sañkshiptasāra o f Kiaraadlśvara quoteB Indra 70-7 ; the *extent 108*82 ; its relation to the A sbtāand arrargem m t o f his &abdhyāyT 109*10 ff ; J urnai a n a td fs dāntdāsana 70*10ff; the authors vritti on it 109 £7ff. quoted by him 7 0 .n 5 ; his f rantic effort to secure brevity illustrated Sanskrit grammar, schools o f, near71*6; his technical term inoiogy ly a dozen 1*10 ; writers on, at least three hundreds 1*11 ; 71-7; other works by Śakatāyana treatises on, over a thoueand 1*13; § 54; comm. on his Śabdanu^Esee under schools. sana 71*30ff ; recasts of it Śāntanavāehārya, author o f th e 72*10ff; later ousted by HemaPhitsutras 27*12 ; mentioned as & cbandra’s Śabdānuśāsana 73*3, relaitiveljr modern writer 27*n4. which however freely draws Saptaśati, coui. on, by N āgeśa 49*7. upon it 76*13, 7 6 .n l, 76*n2. Saptavarman reccived revelation o f Ssketa besieged by Menander 32*23. Aiodra grammar from K ārttikeya 10*22 ; see also Sarvavarman* Śākta grammars 114* 1 Off.


$ystems o f Sanskrit Grammar

Bāra by Kādlnātha, a com. on the
PrakrifSkatim udl 40*hl. Sffrapradīpikā by JagannStha 9 8 1 ,

SarasvatI reveals Sārasvata sūtras

x 95*5.
ŠārTra-bbāshya 33*22, Sārtha 105 5.


* >

Sāra-SiddbāntākannņfdT o f Varadarāja, an abridgment o f the Sid d hāntakaumu.11 51*4. Sārasvata school 43.29;81*24;its date §73 ; its original extent 92*nl ; tw o reoensions o f its Sūtrapāfha 92*ņl ; its special features §74 ; its technical terms 94*116 ; no paribhāshās to it 94*21; and no U ņādis 94*29 ; the school not mentioned bv Bopadeva 92*4, not fcnown to Hem achm dra 92*6; its traditional founder § 75^ vārtikas to it 94*31, 05'2; com. on it by V itthala 89.2; inost o f the comm. oñ it later than 1450 A . D. 92.8, and com e from Northern India 92.14; comm. on it independentlv T»f the Sarasvataprakriyā § 78 \ the — school encouraged by Muhammedan m iers of India 93 4fT, ils dbridgments 103.216; a gencral review o f its history §80 ; 4no supplcraents to it 104.6 ; tho school aHected by modei n revival o f Pāņini 92*20 ; its present status 104 21. Sārasvatahhāshya of K ā& nltha 100*96. Sāiasvata-dlpikā, see Sārasvatavyākarana-d huņ ḍ hi k ā . Sārasvata-mūlasūtiapātba 9 2 .n l. Sārasvataprakriyā o f Anubhūtf* svarūpachārya 9 2 .h l, § 76; its sūtrapātha not the oiiģit& l āfitra-' pāṭha 92 n l ; commentators on it 96.206, §77 ; comrnentaries on Sāi .svata indepṇndeutly o f this § 78 ; vārtikas tmbeded in its sūtrapātha 95*96: ; com. on it by Kshem endra 95.17 ; by Amritabhārati 95.20. Sārasvataprltkrivāvārtika by Sahajaklrti 100.24 ; its date 100.24.

SarvaBiddhSntasañgraha o f Śafika* rācharya, ed. by Rafigāchārva
105*n3. Śarvavarman 10*3 ; 83*nl ; founder o f the Kātantra §64 ; his patron Śātavāhana 82.25, 83.4, 82*n3 ; o v id e n c e fo r lator interpolations in his original sūtrapātha §65; 87*176; the Kiitprakaraņa not by him 84.186, as also certain other sections 8 5 .5 6 , 8 5 .1 6 6 ; nature o f his work §65 ; the extent o f his work 87*36. Satabalāksha m entioned in the Nirukta 8*nl. Śata^lokī by Bopadeva 195-13. Śātavāhana, patron o f Śarvavarman 82.25, 8 2 .n3. Satl mother o f Nāge^a 49.35. Satī-vritti on Uņādis quoted by Ujjvaladatta 54.15 Satvarāja disciple o f Bhānudlkshita * 4 8 .n l. Satyānanda, teaeher o f Itśvarānanda the*author o f Mabābhāshyapradlpa-vivaraņa 43.3. Satyaprabodhabhattāraka 97.18. Satyavrata SāmaśramI on P ānini’s date 14.17. Sp-ubliava 3 5 .n l ; 41-20. fiļfMināgas m entioned by Patafijali 3 1 .n l0 f * o n e o f their vārtikas <|uoted by the Rā4ikā 37 11. Saupadma sOhiool absorbs PāņinTya * UņāTlisūtme 54*9., Saupadma school o f Padm anlbha4dattft §90 ; its special features §91 ; its arrangement l l l . n 4 ; com mentaries on it §92 ; its present status §94. Sanpadma-makaranda by Vishnumidra 112*15. Stnipadmapañjikā, Padmanābha’s own com. on the Saupadma 1 1 2 *10 . Saurjabhagavat m entioned by P at añjali 31.nlQ. Savāi Jeysiiñha in vites N āgeśa for an aśvam edha 49.29. Bāvaņa or Mādhava author o f the Dhātuvritti 52.286. *

bhaṭta 9 8 .2 4 6 : 98.n2. „

by Vāsudevaits date 98.26,

Bāi asvatavyākaraņa-dhuņḍhikā or Saraevata-dlpikā bv Megharatna
9 9 .1 4 6 . *

■ i —: ......... ....—


Schools o f Sanskrit grammar, ia h a p i patron of l a g a n n s t h a 46nearly dozeu 1,4:0; Aindra school o f Grammarians by Dr. Burnell Sheshagiri Bhastṛi 39«a2; 40 a t . ṣ . n l ; the DTkshita aohool 48 n l , SiddhanandIquoted by Śskatāyana §38. The school o f Pāņini §§10 to 70* n5. 41 ; review of its metory Siddhāntachandrikā by R im a§ 4 1 ; three stages in its k te r hischandrādrama 102 4 0 ; |t f com­ torv 56.11fE. Chāndra school §42 mentaries 102*186:; the author’s to §46; its branebing off from own ahndgm ent o f it called the P iņ in ly a school 56.27; ḍts Lagbu-SSḍdhāntachandiikṣ vritb later history § 4 6 ; w hy disa com. 102-191L appeared from lṇdia 8 1 .2 8 ff. Siddhāntakaumu 11 of Bhatf,oji The Jainendra school §47— §50 ; »modelied upon Kāroacbandra’s its k te r history § 50. i The Prakriy3kaumucU 45 10 ; importanco o f the Siddhāntakauschool o f Śākaiayana §51-§55; its mudl §31 ; its presumed indebtedk te r hiatory §55 l a r l y secta­ ness to Hemachandra’» Śabdāmirian schools §§42—62. Rise o f 4āsana 46 22 ; author’s ovtn com. popukr schools of grammar on it in two recensions 47.7ff ; 56.34 * §63-^80» Hemachoodra com. TattvabodhinT by Jimnenschool §56~§b2 ; its k te r historv drasaras\ati 47.25, with a stip§62 ; limited influence 80*221?. plement 1>y Jayaknshņa 4 8 .4 ; i lie Kātantra school §63~§72; its com. on itb y N sgojibhatta 49.15; early history §67 ; its history its abridgraents §34 ; its rek tion in Bengal §71 ; in Kt. mir 872. to the Ilaimakaiunudl 7 9.2I f ; The Sārasvata school §73-^§80 j 109.3. general review of its liistory §80*v The school o f Bopadeva §§81-85 ; Siddbuntar^tna by Jinendu alia» its later histoiy §84. T he Jaumara Jinaratna 102*27. school §86-89 ; its present status Siddlmrāja, see Javasiiiiha. §89. The Saupadma tchool * Siddhasena quotcd by Pñjyapāda §§90-94 ; its present status §94, 66*n2 ; not a grammarian at ali according to Hemachandra 66.22. Later sectarian schools §95-§97. Scythian im asions as afiiecting deSikshā ( o f Pāņini) not a very an­ velopment o f Sanskrit 34.2$,; cient w oik 27*12 ; a stanza from it found in tho Mahābhāshya th ep eoplenotnn kn ow nto Inḍiarik before A lezander’s mvaaion £7*15, 27*n5; the sam e com15 .3 3 ; 17*32 ; 4h ek first kiñg m ented upon by Bhartrihari Deioces 1 8 4 . - 27rii5 ; and rjuoted by K um frila Sectarian schools, earty §§42-62*4 27®n5 i 60*30. later §§95-97. Śilāhāra 67*4. Senaka mentioned by Pāņini 12mS. Singaro«r(«^ Sriñgaverapttra. Śesha-Krishņa author of Prakās'a * Siradeva’s treatk e on Paribhāshās on Rāhiachandra’s Praķriyāļcauquoted in the Mādhavlya-Dhātnraudi 4 5 .2 5 ; personai d etfils viifcti 5 5 ‘6. aķout him 45.27f£; the precepŚishyalekhā, poem by Ch&ndrator o f Bhattoji 46-3, who is howgomin (?) 61*6. ever n o t gratef ul to his memory Siśupālavadlļa 27*ṇ3. * 46.29 ; his date cir. 1600 A . I). 46.4 ; Jaganuātha his son’s pupil Śkuprabodha by Puñjarāja *97*8. 47.2, 4 8 * n t Śiva revealed the pratyshāra sūtras Sesha-Nrisimbasuri father o f Seshato Pāņihl 19*13 ; 23*18 ; 83*6 ; Krishña 45*26. (ass vow els) 114*22Sesliarāja, m Patañjali. Śivabhatta father o f Nāgojibh&fta 49*34.' Śesbatkiinaids com. on the Fariģivānanda 5M 0* * bhāshendu4ekhara 55*9.

t f ī,.'

Šyst*m s lB f Ś a m & tit čra m m ā r
--------- i. ,jk.....««..............

6ivarāma Cbakravarti writes subcom. to Śrlpati’s supplement to Kātantra 90$1.
Siwairāj alias Sūrasirhba o f Jodhapur 8 0*lfr 80*n l.

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

Sphotāyana montionevl by Pānini 12*nŽ. Śrauta-autras o f Kātyāyana 29*nl. Śrāvaņa Bclgoļa 39 n l ; 71 n l . ŚrTdatta quotcd by Pūjyapād«i 66*n2. Śndatta grandfather o f Padmanabhadatta 111*5. Śridhara Chakravarti’s com. on tbe Saupadma 112*13. ŚrTkanthacharita by Mañkha 84*22, Śrlmāla fam ily 96*33. Śriñgaverapura 50*1. Śrlpati’s supplement to the K ā­ tantra 90*18 ; sub-eommentaries on it 90*20f ; furiher supplement to the supplement 90*24. Śrtpati grandfather o f Padmanā­ bhadatta 111*7. feplrañga teacher o f Mādhava 98*20. Śrīdesha, »ee Patafijali, Šrl vallabha-vāchanāchārva’s com . on Hemachandra’s Liñgānutiāsana 79*48#. Śrutapāia auoted by Hemacbandia 76*n2 ; also in the Am oghavi itti 78* n2.

Sthavira-Jinendra, m Jinendsabuddhf. Sthiramati, translatdr of Chāndra te sts in Tibetan language 6M 9* Suhandhu 18*22 ; 14*1. Subhāshitāvali o f Vallabbadeva ouotes Pārtini the poet 13*7, 13*n3. Subodhikā, Arautabhārati’a com. on the Sāras\ataprakriyā 97*14 ; also aseribed to vidvešvarābdhi, to Salyaprub dhabhattāraka, etc. 97-17Ž. Subodhikā or Dip kā by Chandrakliti witli an iinportant p ras'asti at the end 98*7fft Subodhinl of Sadānanda 102*14f. SubodhinI hy G opllagiri on Vijjalabliupati’s Prabodhaprakāda 115*30. Sudarśana an alias o f Haradatta 40-nl* SudhāhiharI, com. on, by Nāgeśa 49*7. Sūrasimha al as Siwairāj o f Jodhapur 80*lf ; 80*nl. Sutra-form not new toP āņrm 13*nl ; possihly due to scarcity o f w n ting matmial 23*6. S>apna-Vāsavadattam of Bhasa 13*28. Sy®disamuchcha} a o f Amarachandra 80*10f* «

Taitiki mentioned in the Nirukta 8*nl. Taittirīya Sranyaka, 4*n2. Taittirīya Samhitā, grammatical speculations in 2*2 ; speaks of Indra as the first of grammarians 10*24, 10*n4. Takakusu 64*20. Tantra-vārtika 2*nl ; 27*n5. Tārānātha, his account about the Aindra school 10^17. TarañginT, HarshakhtTs com. on his own DhātupātUa for Sāras­ vata 103*9. * Tarkasañgraha 50*23. Tarkatilakabhattāchārva’s com. on the Sārasvata 102*22; his date

Sthaulāsbtlvi mentioned Nirukta 8*nl.

in the


General Index
Tattvabodhinl by Jñānendrasarasvati, a com. on Siddhāntakaumudl 47*25; supplcmented by Jayakrisbņa 4 8-4; its nature 48*2fl:, and date 48*8. Tattvachandra, Jayanta’s abridg ment o f the Pralīriyākaumudl 51*nl. Tattvadlpikā by Loke4akara 102*15Tattvārtharājavāriika 63*n4. Technical devices used by Pāņini §13. Technical terms (Sañjñās) of primitive Prāti4ākhyas 5 1 3 ; identifiod w ith those o f Aindra school by Dr. Bnrncll 5 n2; — of Yāaka and Pāņini compared 6*n2 ; prePāņinlya — not ali necessarily o f the Aindra school 11*25 . those of KātySyana not always t hc eame as those of Psņini 30*24ff ; of DevanandI 66*5. 6 6*n l;of ģākatāyana 71*85; of the Kātanira 86*26 ; of the Sārasvata 94*6, 94*1 lff ; o f later sectanan schools 106*16; o f Bopadeva 106*20, 106*n2 ; of Saupdina, same as of Pāņini 111*20, ll2 * 2 ff; of the Harināmārmita 113-23A: ; o f Prabodhaprakīūia 114*22LfTibetan translations o f Chāndra treatises 58*11; 61*18; of the Kītlāpa-Dhātūsutra 90*5. ṭo d a I02*n2. Tolkappiyam, the Tamil grammar, full of Aindra terminology 11*3, 82*12 ; read in the Paņḍva K iug’s assembly 11*4 ; is closelv related to Kātantra to KachchSyana’s Pāli grammar, and to the Prāti4ākhyas 11*7. Trikāņḍadesha U l*n 2. Trilochana ( not = Trilochanadāsa ) author o f the Uttarapari&shṭa to Śripatpg supplement to Kātantra 90*22f. Trilochanadāsa quoted by ViUhalsebārya 45*19; his Kātantravrittipañjikā 89*1 ff ; quoted by Bopa­ deva and Viṭṭhala 89*2 f ; per­ sonai details about l im 89*5f; subcom. on his work 89*7ff, 19*16 ; distinot from the author o f the Kātantrottarapari&&hta 8 9 * n l; quoted by K avi rāja 90*14 ; different from Trilochana 90 22.

Udayachandra author o f an extensive Nyasa on Htni&chandra's Brihadvritti 79*2, 79*nl ; bclougs to Chā, tOrna achthha 78*33. Udayana or Uddaim eourt pandit of Prutāparrdra 101*11. LdayasaiiMiāgya author o f the phuņḍlūkā on the Prffkrit cbapter of Hemachandra’s Brihadvritti 78*25. Ddavasing of Udepur 93*13. Uddana, m l Udayana. Uddyota, see MahābhāshyapradIpod dyota. Udyāna same as Yusufzai valley 19*3. Ugrabhuti author o f Nyāsa on Jagaddhara’s Būlabodiiinl 91*14 ; his probable identification with his namesakc of cir. 1000 A. D. 91*18. Ugrabhuti teaeher of Ānandapāla and prohably the* same aa the author o f the Nyāsa 91*15.

Ujjvaladatta’s vritti on Pāņinlva Uņādiputras 54*11 ; edited īy Aufrecht 54*12 ; quotes earlier vrittis 54*14 ; mentions ChāndraLiñgānudāsana 60*20 ; quoted bv Padmanābhadhtta 111*13,1 ll*n 2 ; 112* 29 .
Uņādiko^a (to Mugdhabodha) by kārnatarkavttgīśa 108*22. Uņādipātha §39, see Uņādisūtrae. Uņādisūtras of Pāņini 21*31 ; commonly aseribed to Śākaṭāyann 25*246:, 25*n4 ; their technical terms and annhandhas same as Pāņini’s 26*10 * , probably regarded as Pāņini's by Kātyāyana 26*18, 26*ni ; not ali belonging tu Pāņini 26*23 ; probably revised by Kāfcyāyana 26*27; tradi*t(onally assigned to Vararnchi alias Kātyāyana 27*6 ; P āņini’s Uņādi sutias absorbed by other schools 54*8; Ujjvaludatta’s v r itti» on them 54*11 ;otner ccmmentators ! 54-146F; Chāndra Uņādi 60*10, ' its mode o f presentation 60*14; that o f Śākaṭāyana 71*15; of Hemaehandra 77*23, w ith vivaraņa or vritti on it 77*31; of Kātantra in tīro recenslons; that of Durga-



Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar
Śākṛlya 31*n4. Vājft8aiieyi Samhitā 29*14. Vairata 42*13. Vākyapadlya aecount of vicissi tilde* in the Mahābhāshva text 13*20, 13*n4, 33*5 41*15 ; states that Mahābhāshya was a summai y o f V yādi’s Sañgraha 31*n9 ; rncntions Baiji and others 35*nl ; by Bhartrihari §27 ; its nature 4 1 *llff ; giv es the earlicst reforence to Chāndra and m en­ tions bis predecessors 41190', 57-20 ; 42-n3 ; 55*23 ; 59*nl. Valhibhatleva in the Subliāshitāvali quotes Pāņini the poct 13 7. Vālmīki-Rāmāyitņa, commentary on, by N āgeśa 49*G. Vārnana, one o f tlie authors of the Kāśikā 35*n2, 3G-8, ; his centi ibntion to the Kāśikā distinguished from that o f Jayāditya 36-4, 3 6 n l ; minister of Jayāplda of Kāśmli*, som etimes idenliñed with Jayāditya 3G*21 ; quoted by Vitthalāchārya 45-20 ; identified with tlie author o f a Liñgānuśāsana 54*2, quoted by Hemachandra 7G*ri2 ; and by Bhattoji 107*9 : see Jayāditya. Vāmanāchārya author o f a Lingānuśāsantt 53*28 ; identified w ith author of the Kāśikā 54*2 ; ear­ lier writers mentioned by him 53*30f ; mentions Chāndra Liñgānuśāsana 60*20. Vāmanendra-sarasvati 47-2G. VamśTvādana’s com. 011 Goylchau<ira’s vritti 110*20. Vanamāii’s Kalāpavyakaraņotpatt i prastāva 82*n2. Varadarāja author o f abridgments o f the Siddhāntakaumudī 51*4 ; 62*21 ; 104*11. V lraņāvaneśa author o f Am nṭasriti, a cūrn. on the Prakriyā' kaumudl 46*nl. Vararuchi (alias K ātyāyana) said to have been at first a follow er o f the Aindra school 1 0 1 5 ; mentioned by Vimalasarasvati as, author o f the Unādisñtras 2 7 .n l, 27*6; 111-nl; 53*24; 53*30; 53*n2 85*n l ; credited with authorship • of the Kātantra-kritprakarana

sirhhaO O l, and that curront in Kāśmlr 8 5 n 2 ; none for Sarāsvata 94*20, 103*8 ; of GoyIchandra 110*14 ; o f Padmanābhadatta the f.onnder *hf Saupadma 112*19. U ņādivntti (Saupadma) o f Padrnanābhadatta 112*24 ; its arrangement ll2*25fT. IJpadeśamālākarņikā of Lukshmlv&llabha 63*3. Upādhvāva qu<»ted by H emachan­ dra 76* n2 ; ftec K ai vy ata. Upala quoted by Hemachandra 76*n2. Upasargavņtti of Chandragomin 60*18 ; fonnti in Tibetan version only. 60*26. Urañgula 101 *9.

Vādava mentioned bv Patafijali 31-nlO. Vādivīlja alias JayHsimha 11, f ellow-flt.udent o f I)ayāpāla 72*24, and a Chālukya emperor 72*25. Vāhaḍa father of Maņdana and hrother of the im iiister Pndama 99*7. Vaidya conmuinity of Bcogal as producing rnany wiiters on K ā ­ tantra 90*25Yaidyanātha Pāyaguņḍa, pupil of Nāgeśa 48*nl ; coruraents upon Šabda-kftufttubha 47*23; his works §32, 50-31F, 55 9 ; personai d e­ tails about him 50*5fl*. Vaishņava grammars 113*15, 114*3 ; now current only in Bengal 114*9. Vaiyakaraņas, mentioned in the Nirukta B*nl. Vaiyākaraņasi ddbāntabhusb aña of Koņtļlabhatt:a48*nl, 48* 14t 55*24 ; com. on it hy Nāgeśa 55*26. Vaiyākaraņasiddhāntamañju8hā of N āgeśa 49*20 ; a com. on it by Vaidyanātha* called Kala 50*14. Vājapyāyana raentioned by K ātyāy»na 31*n5. Vtijasancyi Prātiśākhya, the first ģrammatical work o f Kātyāyana 29*11 ; posterior to and based upon Pāņini 29* n2 ; some o f its rules repeated in an emended form as vārtikas 30.5, 30 n l ; refer» to Śākatāyana 31*n3, and

General In d ex


84-26, 87*2;», vrilh a com. on the same 85-n l. Vardhu»nāna author o f Gaņarvtnamahodadln 52-12, quoies KshTrasvāmin 52*4 ; his date 53*15% 88*n4 ; not same as the author of Kātantravi stara 88*20ff. Vardhamāna author of Kātantravistara 88*20 ; quoted hy Bopa deva 88-23 ; his piobable date 88*22 ; distinct from author of Ganaratnamahncfcdhi 88*n4; 89*4. Varņasutras of Chandragomin 60*13, 60*29, 60*n2, Appendix i. Vargha, said to be the teacher of Pāņini 19‘11. Vārshy&gaņya an alias of Iśvarakrishņa 64-n4. Vārsbyāyaņi mentioned in the Nir­ ukta 8 -n l. Vārtikas of Kātyāyana 14*5 ; their number 30*1 ; some — anetnended statement o f Vājasaneyi ?rātiśākhya rules 30*5, 30*nl ; proae and matricai — 30 L 5. Vārtikakura quotcd ty Hemachan­ dra 76*n2 ; $ee Kātyāyana. Vārtikakāras before Kātyāyana especially the Śloka-vārtikakāras 28-4; the question about the authorsUip of lliese last, discussed 31 - n l l ;—after Kātyāyana3T20iT, 31-nlO Vāsavadattā, an ākhyāyikā nientioned in the Mahābhā&hya 13-20Vāsudevabhatta’s Sārnsvataprasāda 98-24H:; his date 98*26, 98*n2. Vasu ratā preceptor o f Bharṭrihari and disciple o f Chandra 59*1. Vātsyāyana quotes GonardIya and Goņikaputra 33*4. Vffyaḍagachcbha 80-9. Vedāñgas, 6 -nl ; 12 -n2 . Vedas, gramniaticsl speculations in, §2; A retie Home in the — 3-n2 ; collected ‘ into fam ilybooks 4*9 * , 611i ; liels o f difficult wordg from them collected 8*7; nature and utility o f their study 8*17. Vedic Gods, their naraes 8*9; their cosmological funetions 8*18. VeņI mother o f Vaidyanātha 50*6. Vidvatprabodbinl or KāmabhatrtT of KSmabhaUa 101*3; tbe xnany

p r a s ’astis em bodiedin it 101 * 56 :; 101 * 2411. Vidvāvāglda quotes Durgādāsa 107 * 32 . Vidyfvinoda, father o f N yāya I inchānana 110 *17 . Vijayānanda teacher o f H afisavijayag?riii 100 *29 . Vij jain -bhūpati ’s Prabodhach&ndrikā 115 *2211 ; personai details about hirn l l 5 *27 ff. Vikrama, f rther o f Vijjala-bhūpati 115 * 27. Vik;ram&ditya l l T n l . Vimalasarasvati mentions Vararuobi ali&s Kātyāyana as author o f Uņādisūtras 27 * 2 ; 27 *nl; author o f Rupamālā 44*2 ; his date 4 4 *5 ; 4 4 m ; quoted by AmritabhSrati 44 *nl. Vi'tāyaka, father of Kaghunāiha 103 * 4. ViDayasundarn, teacher o f Megharatna 99 *15 . Vinayavijayagaņi author of Haimalaglniprakriyā 79*12 ; pupil o f Klrtivijavagani 79*13 : bis date 79 -13 . 79 *n2 . Vincent Smith, Early H istory o£ India, 17*5 ; 17 *16 . Vlrcśvara, preceptor o f Jagannātha 4 7 -nl, and son of ŚeBhkrishna 4 8 *nl. ‘ . Vishaml by N āgojibhatta, a com. on Blm ttoji’s Śabda-kaustubha 49 -18 . # VishņmnHr&’s com. Saupadmama* karanda 112 *15 . Vishņu-puraņa 16 *7 . Vi*irāntavidyādhara quoted by H e­ machandra 76 *n2 . Viśvakarma, author o f Vyākriti, & com . on Prakriy$kaum udl 46 *n l. Vi^vaprakāsa l ll * n 2 . V iśveivara-dlkshita, see BhānudTkshita. V i 4ve 4 varSbdhi 97 * 17 . V itthala, com. on Sārasvata, quotes Trilochanadāsa 89 * 2. Vitthalāchārya author o f Prasāda the best com. on the Prakriyākaumudl 45 *14 , 4 5 *n2 ; his cfate 45*16 ; disparaged by B hattoji 45*17 ; the authors quoted by him 45 *19 f ; personai details


Systems o f Sanskrit Grammar

* about him 45*21ff; quotes Narendrlchārya 95*24. Vivaraņa o f Idvarānanda, a com. on Mahābhld$iyapradlpa 43*3. , Vivaraņa o f NSrayaņa, a com. on Mahābhāsbyapradlpa 43-3. Vivaraņa on Hemachandra’s Liñgānudāsana and on Unādi sūtras

7t*31fE. (
Vrittisūtra mentioned by Itsing and eṛhaps same as the Kāśikā 5*20, 35*n2. Vyāḍi said to have been at first a foliow er o f the Aindra school 10*16 ; said to be a contemporary o f Pāņini 19*10 ; corarnonly regarded author of the Paribhāshās 27*20; eomes betw een Pāņini and Patafijali 27*21 ; mentioned by Kātyāyaua 3 1 n 6 ; author o f tneSañgfaba 31*18, 3l*n9 ; men­ tioned by VfttnanāchSrya 53*30, 53 n2. Vyākaraņadurghat;odghāta by Keśavadeva 110 n3. Vyākhyāua-prakriyā 82*1. Vyākriti by Viśvakarman, com. on the Prakriyākaumudl 46‘n l.

W eber on P āņini’s date 14*3; his History o f Indian literature 82*7. W estorgaard’s Radices L ingu» aanscritae 25*n3. W ilkin’8 Sanskrit Grammar 104*18. W riting, art of, when introduced 4*26 ; presnpposed by tho primi­ tiv e Prātiśakhyas 4*30.

Y®śahkīrti 64*n2. Ya4nhpāla writea the drama Moharāja-parājaya 75*11. Yāska, predecessors of, §5; hoknew fourfold classificdtion o f words 5*19; 8*25; showaPāņini in mak­ ing 5*19, as primitive Prātiśākhyas show Yāska in making 5*19; Yā'ka, mairdy a philologist 5*26; forms link between prim itive PrātiśākhyaB and Pāijini 5*28 ; calls his work a complement to grammar 5*n3 ; his Nirukta, its date §6 ; his account o f course of developm ent o f Vedic studios 6*nl ; mentions three periods of Vedic studies 6 * n l; his dato depending upon that of Pāņini 6 1 4 ; his technical term s compared with those o f Pāņini 6*n2; Yāska comes between 800 to 700 beforeO hrist 7*5 ; objections to his being placed before Pāņini 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 Pāņini and po&tulate o f modern phi!ology 9*4; Yāaka’s sucees* sors § 8 ; 9*n2 ; 12*5; 12*n2 ; be preceded Pāņini 14*13; made posterior to Pāņini by Pandit 8atyavrata Sāmaśrami 14*17;56*4. Yaśobhadra quoted by Pūjyapāda

JC , Y, Z
ṭā d a v a s of Bfevagiri 104*32,105*3. Ysjñuvalkya looked upon by Kātyāyana as a very ancient writer 27* «1. Yājñikas mentioned in tb e Nirukta

Yaśodharma 58*29. Ya6onandī G4*n2. Yavanas mentioned by Pāņini 15*13; not always t i be identified with lonian G ieeks 15*23 ; P āņini’s knowledge o f them less than that o f Kātyāyana 16*23; 16*33; 18*12; 18*22 ; Menander, called Yavana 32*23. Yogavibhāga 37*25, 37*31 ; 38*nl. Yusufzai valley 19*2 ; known as Gdyāna in the dayB o f Hiuen Tsang 19*3.


Ya}urveda8ambitā-bhff8liya 42*13. Yaiue, Krisņa, Saihhitā anterior to rffṇini 1412* Yakshavarm&n’8 com. called Chintāmaņi on Śākatāyana ŚabdSnuśāsana 72*3.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful