Uṇādi-sūtras in the Sanskrit grammatical tradition 8187418419, 9788187418412

Table of contents :
1. Background and technique of the uNAdi-sUtras
2. Authorship and Chronology
3. Post-pAninian uNAdi-sUtras and commentaries
4. Textual Variations
5. Post-pAninian uNAdi-sUtras

Citation preview

— ,

—

This work presents a lucid account of the Sanskrit unadi-sfltras which form an important and interesting accessory mainly to the Astadhyayi of Panini. The problem of the^ authorship of th^ Pancapadl-unadi-sutras has been analyzed and satisfactorily settled on the basis of the use of the device of prakrti and pratyaya in these sutras. It tells us how the ecymological tendencies in the 3 „ , . Brahmanas culminated in the Nirukta '. .* . i ,. , and how it contributed to the making or , _, , ,. .. , the unadi-sutras. Yaska himself alludes to this heated controversy over theorigin of nouns It has been presented here in the form of a hypothesis that Panini adopted a reconciliatory approach and himself composed the unadi-sutras as an appendix to his grammar proper. The textual variations, which have crept into the body of unadi-sutras because of their lax nature, have been studied, and an attempt has been made to determine the correct reading of the major variations with the help of various commentaries. An exhaustive list of the variations has also been given. The Post-Paninian unadisutras which have their own significance and which have their origin in the Paninian unadi-sutras have been accorded a proper treatment. It has also been shown that it is the Paninian unadisutras which have i n f l u e n c e d the succeeding unadi-sutras to a great extent.

^

J

—

K a n s h i R a m t e a c h e s Sanskrit at Hansraj College, University of Delhi, He has contributed several research articles on different aspects of Indian P h i l o s o p h y and has e d i t e d m a n y b o o k s o n a variety of themes. He has participated in a number of seminars a a n d w o r k s h o p s H e c o n d u c t e d workshop at the M a h a t m a Gandhi , ... . • Institute in Mauritius as a resource .. , , person to discuss and r e v i e w the „ , . ., , , syllabi or both the undergraduate and , , ° . the graduate courses in Indian Philosophy as well as the revision of Sanskrit modules at various levels, also published 'Integral Nondualism' on t h e p h i l o s o p h y of V i j n a n a b h i k s u . He is at p r e s e n t actively engaged in the promotion of Sanskrit studies for school children on one hand and on the other is studying Sanskrit classics with the scholars at the University level,

He has

Price : 395/-

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or stored in retrival system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of Shivalik Prakashan

First Published in 2001

To © Shivalik Prakashan 2001

Kesar ISBN 81-87418-41-9

without whose affection and assistance

Published

by

Shivalik Prakashan 27/16, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-1100 07 Phone No. 7459937

Printed in India Published by VirendraTiwari for Shivalik Prakashan, Delhi-110007, Printed in Pursh Printer, Delhi

this work would not have been completed

(CONTENTS) Preface Abbreviations Contents Chapter 1 BACKGROUND AND TECHNIQUE OF T H E UNADI- S U T R A S 1-35 (i) Brief Introduction (ii) Etymological Background (iii) Technique (iv) Six Grammatical Devices in the Unadi-sutras (1) Anuvrtti, (2) Avrtti, (3) Praslesa, (4) Mandukapluti, (5) Apakarsa, (6) PrakTrnaka (v) Technical Terms (1) Abhyasa, (2) Upadha, (3) Udatta, (4) Upapada, (5) Karaka, (6) Gati, (7) Ti, (8) Dirgha and Hrasva, (9) Vrddhi, (10) Samprasarana, (11) Guna (vi) Functions of the Aubandhas in the Unadi-sutras (vii) Characteristics of the Anubandhas (viii) A List of the Unadi-affixes along with the Anubandhas and Their Functions Chapter 2 A U T H O R S H I P AND C H R O N O L O G Y (i) Problem (ii) Sakatayana as author — Criticism (iii) Apisali as author — Criticism (iv) Katyayana as author — Criticism (v) Panini as author — A Discussion (vi) Chronology Chapter 3 PANINIAN U N A D I - S U T R A S AND COMMENTARIES (i) The Pancapadi — Nature and Contents (ii) The DasapadT — Characteristics

36-48

49-78

(iii) T h e K a t a n t r a

(iii) (iv) . (v)

Commentaries on the PancapadT The Unadi-sutravrtti of Ujjvaladatta — Introduction — Critical Assessment The Unadi-sutravrtti of Svetavanavasin — Introduction — Critical Assessment (vi) Prakriyasarvasva of Narayanabhatta — Introduction — Critical Assessment (vii) The Siddhanta KaumudT, Praudha Manorama and

; (iv)

(v)

Allied Commentaries on the Unadi-sutras —

Commentary of Dandanatha — Introduction —

Introduction — Assessment of the Commentaries (viii) The Unadikosa of Mahadevavedantin — Introduction— Assessment (ix) The Aunadika Padarnava of Perusuri — Introduction — Assessment (x) The Unadikosa of Dayananda SarasvatT — I n t r o d u c t i o n Assessment (xi) The Dasapadyunadivrtti of Manikyadeva — Introduction — Assessment (xii) The Prasada of Vitthalarya — Brief Account (xiii) Manuscript A — Assessment (xiv) Concluding Remarks „. x Chapter 4 T E X T U A L VARIATIONS Part First • ,-w t j (l) Introduction (ii) Nature ' , . _ l/r . (in) Major Textual Variations in the Paninian Unadi-sutras : A Critical Assessment Part Second :

School — Introduction— Characteristics Unadi-sutras of the Katantra School. Commentary of Durgasimha — Introduction — Assessment T h e Cand ™ S c h ° o 1 — Introduction — Characteristics of the Unadi-sutras o f Candra Bho a s J ' S c h o o l - - Introduction — Characteristics of the Unadi-sutras of Bhoja. of the

79-123

.

Assessment

(vi) T h e H a i m a S c h

° o 1 ™ Introduction — Characteristics Unadi-sutras of the Siddhahaima-sabdanusasana— Commentary by Hemacandra—Introduction---Assessment. T h e Haimaprakasa on the Unadi-sutras of H e m a c a n d r a ntroducti I o n — Assessment T h e Sara s v a t a School — Introduction — of the

.

Characteristics of the Unadi-sutras The Subodhika of CandrakTrti — Brief Account. (2) T h e P r a s a d a of Vasudevabhatta — Brief Account. (b) The Unadi-sutras of the Siddhanta Candrika — Introduction - Characteristics of the Unadi-sutras of the Siddhanta Candrika. . r , , m Tattvadipika by Lokesakara — Brief Account (2) The SubodhinI of Sadananda — Brief Account rr,, . _ ,, „ Vyutpattisara — Manuscript (B) — Brief Account EPILOGUE X61 APPENDIX

162-165

A List of the Textual Variations in the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

166-170

Paninian Unadi-sutras

INDEX

171-176

Chapter 5 POST-PANINIAN U N A D I - S U T R A S (i) Introduction (ii) The Unadi-sutras in the Minor Schools of Sanskrit Grammar

124-160

(PREFACE^) The unadi-sutras form an important and interesting accessory to the AstadhyayT of Panini. They promise a fruitful investigation in respect of their genesis, authorship, date, revisions and recensions. Much of the work, in the form of commentaries on the unadi-sutras and allied lexicons, is yet to be published. I could consult only two manuscripts which I have included in the present work under the names 'Manuscript A' and 'Manuscript B ' . The work is otherwise confined to the published works and commentaries which merit attention in the treatment of the unadi-sutras with regard to their etymological importance, nature, etc. The concept of 'prakrti and pratyaya' has been observed in the unadi-sutras but this principle does not go very far and has often been sacrificed at the altar of the swaying trend of grammaticalising every word, prevalent at the time when these sutras were composed. To quote Raghavan in this regard, " T h e unadis represent the attempts of the school of etymologists or Nairuktas and a school of grammarians (Vaiyakaranas) headed by Sakatayana who believed that every word should rather be derived somehow than n o t . " 1 The first chapter 'Background and Technique of the Unadisutras' contains observations and investigations in this direction. It tells how the etymological tendencies in the Brahmanas culminated in the Nirukta, which, in turn, contributed to the making of the unadi-sutras. Yaska alludes to this heated controversy over the origin of nouns. It has been propounded that Panini adopted a reconciliatory path and wrote the unadi-sutras as an appendix to his grammar proper. The nature and characteristics of the unadisutras have further been dealt with and their technique has been compared with that adopted in the AstadhyayT. That the six 1.

U.K.M., Foreword, pp. 1 - 2.

grammatical devices (i) anuvrtti (ii) adhikara (iii) praslesa (iv) apakarsa (v) mandukapluti and (vi) praklrnaka are met with in the unadi-sutras, is a part of the study done in this chapter. The technical terms bear the same implications and enjoin the same grammatical functions as is seen in the AstadhyayT. The anubandhas are very important to be noted in this connection. The functions of the anubandhas and their implications in the unadi-sfltras have been accorded a due treatment. A list of the unadi-affixes along with the anubandhas and the relevant Paninian sutras which regulate the functions of the anubandhas in unadi-sutras, has been given at the end of the first chapter. The second chapter deals with the authorship and chronology of the unadi-sutras. The views of those who ascribe these sutras to Sakatayana, Apisali and Katyayana have been properly evaluated and it has been put forth in a logical manner that it is Panini who wrote them. The unadi-sutras being the creation of Panini, it is reasonable to date them about 500 B.C. The third chapter gives an account of the nature and contentsof the Pancapadi and DasapadI recensions of the unadi-sutras. The following important commentaries along with the 'Manuscript A' have been studied in respect of their authorship, time, importance, characteristics, etc. : (1) The Unadi-sutra-vrtti of Ujjvaladatta. (2) The Unadi-vrtti of Svetavanavasin. (3) The Prakriyasarvasva of Narayanabhatta. (4) The Siddhanta Kaumudi, Praudha Manorama and allied commentaries. (5) The Unadikosa of Mahadevavedantin. (6) The Aunadikapadarnava. (7) The Unadi-kosa of SvamT Dayananda Sarasvatl. (8) The Dasapadyunadivrtti of Manikyadeva. (9) The Prasada of Manikyadeva. (10) Manuscript A. These commentaries throw a flood of light on the characteristics and importance of the unadi-sutras. All these commentaries also quote the sutras of the AstadhyayT relevant to the process of

the derivation of the unadi-words. The etymological exposition of unadi-words given in the commentaries is of great utility from the linguistic point of view. The commentary of Ujjvaladatta is the b e s t o f a11 t h e available commentaries on the Paninian unadisutras, as it exhausts every source that could provide information about the unadi-sutras. The textua l variations have been dealt with in the fourth chapter. An attempt at determining the correct reading of the major variations has been made with the help of various commentaries, rules of accen t s , usage, etc. An exhaustive list of the variations has been given in the second part of the chapter. T h e f i f t h cha p t e r deals with the Post-Paninian unadi-sutras and their commentaries. It has been shown that these sutras have their ori in in g the Paninian unadi-sQtras. Every subsequent school of grammar made the best use of the preceding system or systems of Sanskrit grammar. I deem it my pleasant duty to acknowledge my gratitude to all those scllolars and grammarians whose works have proved helpful in m y research one way or the other. Particularly for the views on the authorship of the PancapadI unadi-sutras, I express my gratitude t0 Shri K B - Pathak. All such works have been listed in the bibliography and have also been referred to in the body of the present work wherever necessary. At last, I want to express my indebtedness to Pt. Yudhisthira Mlmamsaka, who helped me procure the two manuscripts mentioned above and other rare books on the unadi-sutras. He, from time to time, also gave his valuable suggestions regarding the problems of the unadi-sutras. • • the

*

' '

II

(ABBREVIATIONS) ABORI A.P. B.K.U.

I

B.M. B.S.S. Catalogue

Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Aunadika Padarnava of Perusuri The Unadi-sutras of Bhoja and the Katantra (with the commentaries of Dandanathanarayana and Durgasimha) Balamanorama Brhacchabdendusekhara A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts ed. M.M. Haraprasada Sastri.

C.U. Dictionary D.P. H.P. H U _Itihasa Ka. KN. K.U.D. MBH. M.D. Ms. N.C.C. Nir. Pa. Panini S.K. P M. K.

The Unadi-sutras of Candracarya A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar DasapadI ed. Yudhisthira Mimamsaka Haima-prakasa-mahavyakarana The Unadi-sutras of Hemacandra Sanskrit Vyakarana Sastra Ka Itihasa Kasika Kasika Nyasa or Kasika Vivarana Panjika Durgasimha on the Katantra-unadi-sutras Mahabhasya MadhavTya Dhatuvrtti Manuscript New Catalogus Catalogorum Nirukta The Astadhyayi of Panini Panini and His Place in Sanskrit Literature by Goldstiicker The Praudha Prakriya SarasvatTkanthabharana Manorama KaumudT of Bhoja

Sk. SP. S.V. Sv. Systems T.B.U. Technique UJJ. ^ U.S.N. U.S.S. U.S.Sk. U.S.U. U.T.B.

Siddhanta K a u m u d i by S.C. Vasu Supadmavyakarana Sarasvatavyakarana Svetavanavasin Systems of Sanskrit G r a m m a r TattvabodhinT on the unadi-satras Technical Terms and Technique of Sanskrit grammar Ujjvaladatta ^ e Unadikosa of Dayananda SarasvatT T h e Unadikosa of Mahadevavedantin The Unadisutravrtti of Narayanabhatta (Unadikhanda of Prakriyasarvasva) _ The Unadisutra-vrtti of Svetavanvasin Unadisutras in the Siddhanta K a u m u d i The Unadi-sutra-vrtti of Ujjvaladatta Unadi-sutras in the TattvabodhinT

* > I \ I

j

BACKGROUND AND TECHNIQUE OF THE UNADI-SUTRAS *

I

Brief Introduction G r a m m a r ,s Q n e essential

j j j

for

lhe

six

sciences

thg proper understanding of the V e d a s

which

^

It h a s a V£

o l d tradition. W e meet with the earliest speculations of grammatical nature in the Vedas. Haraprasada Sastri 1 says in this regard, ' 'Passages which are considered to talk of grammatical speculations may be otherwise explained, or, if they speak of grammar in any sense, it is of the most primitive k i n d . " This grammatical tendency developed gradually, as we see a more conscious effort in the Brahmanical literature. The Gopatha B r a h m a n a furnishes an example to this effect. 2 It was in the next period that there came into being various manuals on phonetics which deal with letters, accents, quantity, pronunciation and euphonic rules. 3 The postpratisakhya period might have witnessed a rise of a number of schools of Sanskrit g r a m m a r established by the grammarians like, Apisali, Kasyapa, Gargya, Galava, Cakravarmana, Bharadvaja, Sakalya, Sakatayana, Senaka and Sphotayana who have respectfully been referred to by Panini in his AstadhyayT. The extinction of the Pre-Paninian schools of g r a m m a r can be attributed to the extensive recognition of the AstadhyayT in which the author has ably blended his originality with the careful and ingenious borrowings f r o m the texts of the old grammarians. A careful glance

1. 2.

Catalogue, Preface, p. XXX. 3T?frl^cfrKt^^TO ^ fa? faqfaxT:,

Trm:,

TTTfaqf^F?,fa?HIHIteHIdH, fa?faff, fa? WT,

TfSTC 3 w i f f^RTrf:, fa? %

FAROL, RIHI=I:, CHLDCIUF:, ^FCT^TC, j

^

V

p. 24. Systems, p.4.

I,

^

fa^R:,

^F?: ^FRFJ: I Gopatha B r a h m a n a

at the Sanskrit grammatical tradition shows that Sanskrit grammar had been growing more and more scientific and technical before it attained its culmination in the AstadhyayT of P a n i n , The fivefold division 1 of Sanskrit grammar bears out this fact. The five divisions are (1) sutra-patha (2) dhatu-patha (3) gana-patha (4) unadi-patha and (5) liriganusasana. The sutra-patha forms the principal section of Sanskrit grammar and the remaining four sections are appended to it. At first, Sanskrit grammar formed a single volume comprising sutra-patha and khila-patha as its proper sections. 2 The Sarasvatlkanthabharana of Bhoja, which incorporates into its text the varttikas, the unadi-sutras, the gana-pathas, the paribhasas and the phit-sutras bears out this view. Etymological Background The unadi-patha or the unadi-sutras look like an attempt at the logical vindication of Sakatay a n a ' s view that all the words without any exception whatsoever can be derived with the addition of affixes to the verbal roots. U m a Shankar Dixit implicitly maintains the same view when he says that the scientific character of etymology lost colour with the introduction of the unadi-sutras which were lax in nature. 3 Regarding the looseness of the unadisutras, he refers to popular anecdote : A Sanskrit scholar succeeded in deriving some Persian words ' m i y a ' , 'muluka' and ' m o l a n a ' from the root Vma 'to measure' with the addition of the imaginative unadi affixes ' d i y a ' , 'duluka' and 'dolana'. The 'ti' of Vma is elided as the affixes are 'dit' 4 In the olden times all the words, nominals and indeclinables were looked on as root-born and as such the Sanskrit grammar must have naturally been enormously huge. The voluminous grammatical text of Mahendra, which has been mentioned by Devabodha in his commentary Jnana-dlpika on the Mahabharata

2. 3. •4.

Prabandha Cintamam, p.60. Itihasa, Vol. II, p.3.' Hindi Nirukta, Intro., p. 131. cRTf^ t ^ W f^T, feqf ^FTTI TIT ^ ^ f ^ fe^ firaf gg^T tt^ftt II - Quoted in Hindi Nirukta, Intro., p. 131.

mioht cpi-vp ac

11 I | I

j

'

j i

, ]

'

j i r t uW O r d w a s t r a c e d to "1 ™ ^ " 1 1 7 ^ t T ^ t T T ^ h°W ^ ^ V lume f Z L T T H^ ^ ^ ° °f S a n s k n t grammar shrank gradually. The gana-patha, dhatu-patha and unadiSUtraS l £ ; a m e a p p e ^ e s t,° t h e sutra-patha or sabdanusasana 0156 students 'I' ""' of Sanskrit grammar began to lose interest in a e dlces A s a resu ' PP " ' t the root-affix-relation became incomprehensible to them and the words fell under two classes : (1) w o r d s w h , c h c a n b e traced t0 their roots - (2) words which cannot l,e t r a c e d t 0 th e i r roots. If P r ° b a b l y led to the controversy Yaska alludes to in his Nirukta. 2 Grammarian Sakatayana and the etymologists traced all Verbal r00ts while ' " 0 m i n a l StemS ' Etymologist Gargya and some grammarians declared that all the nouns could not be traced ,() t h ( i r j roots. Yaska discusses this controversial issue at length and concludes that all the nouns are root-born. This heated controversy might have stimulated a number of moderate grammarians to find out a w a y w h l c h cou l d be acceptable to both the factions. To quote Macdonell in this regard " P a n i n i makes a concession to Gargya's objection by excluding all the words the derivation of which is difficult owing to their f o r m or meaning, such as asva, 'horse', go 'cow' and purusa ' m a n ' . The primary nouns of this kind had been collected before Panini's time in a special list, in which they were often forcibly derived f r o m verbal roots by means of a number of special suffixes. The first of these suffixes being ' u \ technically called ' u n ' , the whole list of these formations came to be known as unadi. Panini refers to all such words as readymade stems the formation of which does not concern him " 3 As will be seen from l h e unadi-sutras themselves,the derivation in most cases hardly

' 1

_ . '"-y^H ^ ^ ^ 1 'Wc-llPl cTlf% ^PtT MIruIPH•>?»fcM^ II - Quoted in Itihasa, Vol. I, p.43. ere ^ n f r ^fa ^ e k m w ^ i i ^t ^ f f t r f f r rnrqf '^WlHi Nir., 1.12. A Sanskrit Grammar, Macdonell, Intro., p. xii.

brings out the meanings of the derived words. Carrying Sakatayana's view to its extreme limit that all the words must somehow or the other be derived from verbal roots, it does not matter much even if the meaning of the word has no relation with the meaning of the basic root. _ _ A fanciful example is provided by the Nyasakara 2 . The word davittha means a wooden toy-deer The phonetically nearest root i s ' d i n ' and so the affix should be tha , with the augment avit . To get d from di , we may have recourse to an affix with the anubandha ' d ' . So the rule would be 'diriasca did davicca'. Similarly 'rphida' and 'rphidda'may be derived from VFby the addition of 'phida' and 'phidda'. The rule accordingly obtained would be 'arteh phidaphiddau'. Evidently this is not a derivation but merely a result of such an etymological speculation as we come across in the Nirukta. All that can be said in favour of the unadi derivations is that they fairly determine the correct spellings of words. 3 Patanjali was aware that such derivations are no derivations at all. The words derived are conventional in the sense that the derivation does not yield the sense 4 and words ending with the affixes ' u n ' , etc. do not really admit of a division into the base and the affix. However, they are treated of as if they were derivable and so the ordinary rules of grammar would apply to the unadi-sutras, but Nagesa has something different to s a y - ' H o w can derivation be accepted there if f r o m such derivations we cannot understand the meaning of the ,e r, • , . • • , u constituent parts ?n 5 Rajwade, too, says that the principles observed in the Nirukta are responsible for unnatural derivations. In brief, these principles are wrong. The theory underlying the , . . . , __ ,, • , | , . derivations in the unadi-sutras consists in developing words out off roots apparent in them.

2

3. 4.

6.

Wfc** ^ WIT* ^ ^ T t KN on 3.3.1.

* J f e . U.S.S., V - 1.

However, it becomes necessary to tell how etymology had its i m p a c t Q n t h g u n a d i - s u t r a s in order to assess the nature of these s [ j t r a s c o r r e c t l y T h e etymological tendencies found currency in t h e B r a h m a n i c a l literature. If we pool all the etymologies from the

(

Brahmanas, it becomes quite clear that Y a s k a ' s Nirukta is heavily ^ on ^ bc sa,d ^ t h e e t y m o l o g l c a l tendenc.es culmination in the Nirukta of Yaska. ^ From o f t h e u n , d i . s a t r a s w i t h t h e etymologies . . r • _ . , ( f > ^ s k a , it is evident that the uriadi-su ras appear to be an mtelhgent grammatical a d a p t a t i o n o f Y a s k a setymologicalexplanations. There are a number of examples which throw a flood of ' ' g h t o n t h e s e P o i n t s o f s i m i I a n t y - H o w e v e r , it does not mean that the points of difference are not worth paying attention to.

!

l.Unadisutras (Ujjvaladatta) l. I. 100. 2. d - ^ R - ^ : 11. 13. 3 -M ^fadPd*P>IyPdPdftI«T: 151. 4 f ^ - ^ m t m u i n ^ i I. 150 ^ (-^....q^.), T 1 4 7 5

*

)

(

7

M W a ^

4

II. 50.' ' * ^ i)[H d^S-W^M II. 58 11.22

w n q ; " ^ r a t ^ t i f 11. 13. ^ famrnwi^ 11 7 ^ t ^ i P w W _ .. » 3TMRT:I X. 27 . . r CTfti III. 21 ^

1.20. 1VIII. 12.

66

'»• 11.TOST:III. 67 I

^

12. f ^ K i r ^ P ^ :

14

i

U.S.S. I - i. JIK kit (ii)nit (iii) idit kit kit nit

7 8

-

1-117

dit (i) kit (»)dt UU mi (i) kit Jii) n k kit (i) kit (i) kit (ii) „it (i) kit (ii) nit (i) kit (ii) nit kit (i) kit (ii)idit klt

.

kan

kalan

-

kaku

-

® k l tCt l t

k

P G

1-156

klraC

(i) PG (ii) A

11-61

(i) PG (ii) A (iii) EP PG

III - 41 "43 III-45

PG A ET

TTT 111

"

e 51

«

P G

-

®

(i) PG (ii) A PG

IV - 2

(i) PG (ii) A

I V

3

(i) PG (ii) A

"99

(i) PG (ii) A

"156

IV - 176 IV

"

238

V - 44

"

kltan

" ( V - 62 V - 53

i

i

(i) of no use1 ) A PG EA

Ill - 76

(1) PG (n) A

III - 78

PG (i) EN (ii) A 2

1-52 1-53

A

II - 40

(i) PG (ii) A

1

l)klt

IV - 24

(i) PG (ii) A

-

(0 kit Jii) c j t

„_ IV - 85

(i) PG (ii) A

.

(i)kit

-

(i) k,t

I V

i y

"178

(i) PG (ii) A ( 4 - 1 8 4 S v -)

l84

0 0

kltac

-

kTka

"

"

PG (i) SP (ii) EP

(i) kit ).' . (ii) cit nlt

!

l

L

2. 3.

IV-185

(i) PG (ii) A

V - 51

(i) PG (ii) A

-

kit

I - 23

PG

ku

kit dit kit

I - 24 1-34 1-93 T I I - 99

SP 3 ET PG PG

kusan

" . . -

IV - 74

(i) PG (ii) A

kvan

-

1

(l) PG (n) A

k k

fi") kit

(i) kit (")

j 1 * II

190 Sv.)

ku

keyya

(i) PG (ii) A

(i). PG (ii) A

V

"

, kindac

A

, HI - 142 III-146

"

! >n

ii)nit

(i) PG (ii) A

TT7 I V

klka

(«) nit

-

...

kisyan

"I-108

I V

(i) kit

(ii) n it kit kit (i) kit . (n) nit kit

kikan

111

cit

karan

"64 1-65 1-67 I - 106 1-108

nit nlt

"

151

^ K I ^ T F T -^FeT ^ ^ r T I U.S.S., V - 56. ^fdfcdi !

LV 158

sa san

-

kit nit

III - 66 V - 2i

saran

-

sikan syan

-

nit cit kit nit nit

III - 70 III - 73 III - 73 IV-153 IV - 2

"

• 1. 2. 3.

-

Pa. 6.1.213. pa. 3.1.4. dPkl^ I Pa. 4.1.6.

,

" "-

,tn

A1 (Cf. V. 13 Sv.) PG A A A PG A (i) EP (ii) A 2

j

The anubandhas occurring in adesas and agamas also prescribe the same grammatical functions as laid down by Panini in his AstadhyayT. A majority of the anubandhas are for ease of pronunciation. The sQtra 'midaco'ntyat parah' finds its scope only in three unadi-sutras. 1 The sutra 'adyantau takitau' is the only sutra which functions in the case of adesas and agamas. Thus the perusal of the characteristics of the unadi-sutras shows that they are part a n c j parcel of the AstadhyayT as they are used almost in the same sense as the ^ a r e u s e d i n t h e A ?tadhyayl.

V A A (Cf. V-38 Sv.) A V and A (i) S (ii) For nip & AN 3 A V rw

W

For

- /* *\ A (ll)

A

1 2 3

-

SP A (Cf. V.20 Sv.) A A PG A A

i

1.

U.S.U., 1-16, 1-94, IV-77.

o f . ' " Later on in his book 'Panini' Goldstucker ascribes these sutras to an author later than Panini. That the unadi-words are forced derivations has led many scholars to ascribe these sutras to i

grammarian Sakatayana who held the extreme view that all nouns r o m verbal roots. Others, on the basis of the presence °f t h e pratyahara_'nam' in the unadi-sutras, conclude that they

are derived f

f 2 ] ^ '

WERE WRITTEN b

AUTHORSHIP AND CHRONOLOGY It is a frequent phenomenon of Sanskrit literature that scholars have wrestled with their brains to arrive at satisfactory decisions regarding the authorship and chronology of literary works in Sanskrit. It reflects indifference to the sense of historicity on the part of ancient Indian seers and authors. The problem of the authorship of the Sanskrit unadi-sutras furnishes an interesting example which adds to the number of the undecided hypotheses. Notwithstanding the fact that both foreign and Indian scholars have discussed this problem, nothing conclusive can be said in this regard. & Problem : The genesis of the problem of the authorship of the unadi-sutras of the Paninian school of grammar lies in the twin reference to them in the AstadhyayT. > The query could be put forth like this : If Panini wrote the u n L - s u t r a s , why did he separate y „ ™• ' scpdidie f t, them from the Astadhyay, ? The very separate existence of the unadi-sutras gave rise to many assumptions about the authorship of these sutras. Goldstucker s remarks about Panim's reference to the unadi-sutras sound somewhat queer. To quote him in this respect "It is true that grammarian (Panini) speaks twice of unadis, but he anever of unadi-sutras. The former term merely implies list of speaks unadi-affixes, and may imply according to analogous expression in Panini, a list of words formed with these affixes; but it can never imply a work which treats of these affixes and these formations, like the unadi-sutras which we are speaking .1.

^nK^^^I

y A P»sali. Before we come to any conclusion, we must examine the different views about the authorship of the unadi-sutras one by one.

j

j

Sakatayana as author The controversial view that Sakatayana is the author of the unadi-sutras seems to be based on 'vyakaranesakatasyacatokam'. Those who support this view hold that Sakatayana was a strong exponent of the theory that all words are derived from verbal I OOtS a n d t h a t t h e unadi-sutras endeavour to vindicate this view logically. Kaiyata's remarks are evasive in conspicuously ascribing authorship to Sakatayana, 2 but Nagesa adds that the words of the former suggest that the unadi-sutras are the creation of Sakatayana. 3 Svetavanavasin does it more clearly 4 Visvesvara Sflr, makes a similar statement that the unadt-words when dissolved into root and m e a m g a d that c o n ^ " " f J ^ l y they form the content of some other grammatical t r e a t . ^ T h e s u t r a ' u n a d a y o b a h u l a m ' i s to corroborate the genuineness of those words. MahamahoDadhvava Haraprasada SastrT also endorses this view s a y m g ' ' p J u f w a f n o a v y u t p a t t i v a d l , that is, he did not hold the view that all the words in t h e Sanskrit language can be derived from Sanskrit roots So he did not write the unadi-sutras but left them out by saying 'unadayo bahulam'. On the other hand Sakatayana held the view that all S a n s k r i t w o r d s are d e r i v a b l e f r o m S a n s k r i t roots. 1-

2

3. 4

Pa. 3.3.1. pa. 3.4.75. (36)

-

Panini, p. 174. WFmwrfeTRT ^ r t d H H i g f a f t ^ f a i Kaiyata, MBH„ 3.3.1. ^T ^cfi^d dunliuyif&i ijllcbdm^rd Nagesa. MBH., 3.3.1. PP

' ' " 2'

^cqHMH, Vyakarana Siddhanta Sudhanidhi, p. 1399, ed. Mahadeva Shastri, Bhandari, Benares, 1924.

Macdonell, 1 Maxmuller 2 and

So I think Kasinatha is right in attributing the unadi-sutras to Sakatayana." 1 Suryakanta SastrT2 also holds the same view. At last, we present the remarks of Vasudeva DTksita , who pamstakingly fortifies this view. He quotes the same karika and comments thereon by Kaiyata and establishes this thesis, to support which he produces the evidence of the third varttika of Katyayana on Pa. 7.1.2 which means that the unadi-words, in the opinion of Panini, are not derived from verbal roots. By quoting another similar remark of Patanjali, he goes to the length of refuting the theory that Panini regards all the words as traceable to roots. Panini, therefore, cannot be the author of the unadi-sutras. He continues the discussion : Had the unadi-sutras been written by Panini, Patanjali on Pa. 2.4.56 (ajervyaghanapoh) would not have derived the word 'vayu' from the root V^j when the very first unadi-sutra explains its derivation from the root He alludes to the derivative theory of the unadi-sutras which is discussed in the Mahabhasya and says that it gives a clue that these unadi-sutras might have been the subject-matter of some other grammatical work. As he winds up the discussion, he raises some other objections like repetition, looseness, etc. and comes to a tentative conclusion that it is not Panini but Sakatayana who wrote these sutras. 3 Dr. Carey, 4 1. 2. 3.

Catalogue, Vol. 6, Preface, p. xxxiii. Rktantra, Intro., p.50 - footnote. rfTpT ^ttPt w f ^ r g f w f a r f t -T g ^ifH-ii nuTmiPi, ^ W f t ^ ^ ^ STFR^ WKZW ^ c f t ^ ^crHJ^lfHfd

mfalHhc^

4.

^ d l ^ n R ^ l u i i ^ mMWHl

Sakatayana. Criticism : All these v,ews mentioned above are based on the k5nk5 'vyakarane sakatasya ca tokam' wh,ch actually alludes to d,fferent P o m t s o f v , e w w h i c h w e r e Prevailing in the hnguistic s here at t h e t i m e of Y 5 s k a w h o a , s o c o u l d not hel P ' P discussing it a t l e n t h i n h , s N i m k t a l t 1S t r u e t h a t a § §ood n u m b e r of schools of Sanskrit grammar had been current before Panini. The grammarians to w h o m Pai im alludes in hls ? AstadhyayT might have written lhese Iess re ular rules as a § § e n u m e P a r t o f 3 h e i r grammars proper, 0 n e factlon of the grammarians headed by Sakatayana held that all the n o u n s are de " v e d from verbal roots. They probably did not w n t e the unadi-sutras separately but on the other hand they might have w n t t e n t h e m as a P r o P e r part of their grammars under the sectl0n of the primary affixes without any specification. It was on Jy K l ? i n i leaned towards the much more intelligent view of Ga r g y a and adopted a reconciliatory path by separating the list of l ie ' unadi-sutras. Vedavrata, the editor of the Mahabhasya criticises the view that Sakatayana was the author of the unadi-sutras. He says that the karika of Patanjali never implies that these sutras were written by Sakatayana. What it actually implies is that Sakatayana was the

j

|i 'j I

tfi

exponent of the theory that all the words are derived from verbal roots and the unadi-sutras vindicate this theory logically. It also does not follow that Panini was the strong supporter of the theory 4 Apisali as author : Yudhisthira MTmarhsaka 5 endeavours to 1.

llfuiliHrl t ^ l 3TcT T^ - " f f b ^ WlRmR+ft^HI^ tprarT: ftr^PT ^o^iiHlfa yifd4f