Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

India as Known to Panini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashtadhyayi c6: Chapter I. Pāṇini : His Life and Work

India as Known to Pāṇini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashṭādhyāyī c6

Language
English

Chapter I. Pāṇini : His Life and Work

c6.2

*GRAMMAR* (*Vyākaraṇa*)—Grammar was regarded by the Indians as the first and most important of the sciences (*Vyākaraṇaṁ nāmeyam uttarā vidyā*, *Bhāshya*, 1.2.32; I.208; also *shaṭsu aṅgeshu pradhānam*). The results attained by them in the systematic analysis of language surpass those arrived at by any other nation. "The Sanskrit grammarians were the first to analyse word-forms, to recognise the difference between root and suffix, to determine the functions of suffixes, and on the whole to elaborate a grammatical system so accurate and complete as to be unparalleled in any other country." (Macdonell, *India's Past*, p. 136). Their singular achievements in this field have also rendered eminent services to Western philology.

c6.3

The celebrated grammar of Pāṇini is the oldest surviving representative of this elaborate grammatical analysis of forms and linguistic investigation. Pāṇini is the architect of the magnificent edifice known as the *Ashṭādhyāyī*, which justly commands the wonder and admiration of the world. His work may be regarded as the starting-point of the post-Vedic age, almost entirely dominating the classical Sanskrit literature by the linguistic standard set by it. His grammar regulates equally the language of both poetry and prose in Sanskrit. Pāṇini's work holds good for all ages so far as Sanskrit is concerned. It is a permanent influence and institution in the world of Sanskrit even to this day.

c6.4

*PĀṆINI'S GREATNESS*—Weber regards Pāṇini's grammar as "superior to all similar works of other countries, by the thoroughness with which it investigates the roots of the language and the formations of its words." (*History of Indian Literature*, p. 216). According to Goldstücker: "Pāṇini's work is indeed a kind of natural history of the Sanskrit language.” His grammar “is the centre of a vast and important branch of the ancient literature. No work has struck deeper roots than his in the soil of the scientific development of India.” Pāṇini's rules (*sūtras*) have been framed with the utmost conciseness and this dignified brevity is the result of very ingenious methods. His terminology adequately explaining all the phenomena of the language, demonstrates his great originality.

c6.5

Coming at the end of a long evolution of grammatical studies the *Ashṭādhyāyī* achieved finally its position as the only adequate and comprehensive Sanskrit grammar. Regarded as the highest authority and also as infallible, Pāṇini superseded all his predecessors whose works have consequently been lost in oblivion. Of the older linguists, Yāska alone survives, and that because his work lay in the different field of Vedic exegesis.

c6.6

Pāṇini undertook a profound investigation of the spoken and the living language of his day. He applied the inductive method in discovering and creating his own material for purposes of evolving his grammatical system. As a trustworthy and competent witness of linguistic facts, he cast his net so wide that almost every kind of word in the language was brought in:

c6.7

शब्दास्सुबहवः संकलितास्तानूपादाय पाणिनिना स्मृतिरुपनिबद्धा,
(*Kāśikā*, IV.I.114).

c6.8

This is shown, for example, by his rules applied to the accent, or the lengthening of the vowels in cases of calling from a distance (*durād-dhūte*), salutation (*pratyabhivāde*), and in the case of questions and answers (*pari-praśna*); or more specially, in his survey of place-names, and names of *charaṇas*, *gotras* and *janapadas*, for purposes of derivative formations which must have served an intensely practical need.

c6.9

The characteristic feature of Pāṇini’s system is that it derives words from verbal roots. He has given us comprehensive lists of suffixes and roots. In this way his grammar is a contribution not merely to Sanskrit, but to linguistics in general, throwing light on the structure of the cognate Indo-European languages. Pāṇini, unlike Sākaṭāyana, did not carry to extremes the theory of treating all nouns as verbal derivatives, but also recognised the formation of fortuitous words (*yadṛichchhā śabda*, *nipātana-śabda*) in the language for which no certain derivation could be vouchsafed. Pāṇini's work is distinguished by the balanced judgment which it demonstrates in relation to contentious or extreme views.

c6.10

His work is also unique in one respect, *viz.*, that like Yāska's *Nirukta* it is one of the rare masterpieces of old Sanskrit literature which is the work of an individual author, and not of a school. As Colebrooke has put it, the *Ashṭādhyāyī* "certainly bears internal evidence of its having been accomplished by a single effort" (*Miscellaneous Essays*, 1873, Vol. II, p. 5). According to Burnell: "Pāṇini's grammar has, in all probability, been little tampered with; we have better warrant for its integrity than in the case of any other work" (*On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians*, p. 31). For purposes of cultural and historical material the references in the *Ashṭādhyāyī* have the same value as epigraphic or numismatic records. Its credit is also very much enhanced by its admitted antiquity.

c6.11

On the whole one may say that Pāṇini's grammar is related to Sanskrit like the tap-root of a tree, the source of its sap and vitality regulating its growth. For Indo-European philology, Pāṇini's work has proved of inestimable value. For Indian history and culture, the *Ashṭādhyāyī* is a mine of trustworthy information throwing light on numerous institutions, as the present study is directed to show.

c6.12

The genius of Pāṇini appeared at a critical point in the history of Sanskrit to solve the crisis confronting it. The days of Vedic Sanskrit had come to an end by the time of Yāska, and fresh forms were coming into use. A new regulating and authoritative grammar was needed for bridging the gulf between the Vedic language and the rising popular speech or the classical Sanskrit which had come to stay. It was Pāṇini's mastermind that saved the situation by devising a system which treated of the Vedic language on the one hand and the classical Sanskrit on the other with requisite synthesis and proper shifting of emphasis. Pāṇini’s concentrated contemplation and penance accomplished a supreme task under the grace of God, to which tradition so amply testifies.

c6.13

*EPITHETS*—Pāṇini’s *magnum opus*, the *Ashṭādhyāyī*, is a code of Sanskrit grammar consisting of about 4,000 or to be more precise 3,995 rules. Pāṇini wrote in the *sūtra* style with admirable regard for economy of words. Although Kātyāyana after him also composed the *vārttikas* in the *sūtra* form, Pāṇini alone is understood by the term *sūtrakāra* (*Pāṇineḥ sūtrakārasya*, *Bhāshya*, II. 2. 11; I. 414). In a *kṛidanta* rule (III. 2. 23) he teaches the formation amongst other words of *sūtrakāra* and *śabdakāra*. Patañjali speaks of Pāṇini adopting the *sūtra* style as the medium of teaching grammar (*vyākaraṇaṁ sūtrayati*, III. 1. 26; II. 34). Previous writers were perhaps inclined to treat Vyākaraṇa as composed of rules as well as individual words (*lakshya-lakshaṇa*). But Patañjali tells us that Pāṇini’s contribution consisted in framing *sūtras* to embody the linguistic phenomena and to build up a system, rather than pursue the arduous and lengthy process of taking each word separately (*na hi Pāṇininā śabdāḥ proktāḥ, kiṁ tarhi, sūtram*, I.12). The title *śabdakāra* also may be applied to Pāṇini, since grammar concerned as it was with words is referred to as *śabda* in the *Ashṭādhyāyī* itself (I.1.68 and VIII.3.86, *śabda-saṁjñā*). Elsewhere Pāṇini derives *śābdika* as applied to a grammarian on account of his authorship of *śabda* or grammar (IV.4.34, *Śabdaṁ karoti śābdikaḥ*). Since Pāṇini was the promulgator of a complete system of grammar, *Vyākaraṇa*, the title *vaiyākaraṇa* also applies to him, and he himself uses this term for a grammarian in one of his *sūtras* (VI. 3.7).

c6.14

*KĀTYĀYANA’S ESTIMATE*—Kātyāyana has been Pāṇini's ablest scientific critic, but also a follower. His own genius was of a high order. He subjected Pāṇini's work to a searching examination, modifying and supplementing the *sūtras* where there was need for it in the process of time, initiating discussions on contentious grammatical theories, at times developed in as many as fifty-nine *vārttikas* (cf. *sūtra* I. 2. 64), and in other cases justifying and defending Pāṇini against his critics. He has written in a critical and scientific spirit, and not as a detractor of Pāṇini. The number of his *vārttikas* is nearly 4,263, showing that he laboured hard to bring out the depth and value of the Pāṇinian system.

c6.15

There is unfortunately a tradition current in India, reinforced by legends that Kātyāyana was a biased critic of Pāṇini. The opinion is reiterated even by an eminent writer like Śabarasvāmin (*sadvāditvāch-cha Pāṇiner-vachanaṁ pramāṇaṁ, asadvāditvān-na Kātyāyanasya*, *Mīmāṁsā-Bhāshya*, X.8.1). Prof. Kielhorn who set forth the true position of Kātyāyana in relation to Pāṇini, has shown that it would be a scientific mistake to stigmatize Kātyāyana as an unfair antagonist of Pāṇini, since the object which Kātyāyana and Patañjali have in view throughout their works is one and the same, the nature of their remarks being identical, but only differing in form (Kielhorn, *Kātyāyana and Patañjali*, p. 53). The *Ashṭādhyāyī* instead of being weakened by Kātyāyana shines in his hands with added glory. Kātyāyana gives expression to his admiration for Pāṇini by concluding the *vārttika-sūtras*, in the following devout strain:

c6.16

भगवतः पाणिनेः सिद्धम् ।

c6.17

*PATAÑJALI'S TRIBUTE*—Patañjali, the author of the *Mahābhāshya*, has applied his mastermind to reveal the depth and range of Pāṇini's scholarship. Like Kātyāyana, Patañjali applies the term *Bhagavān* exclusively to Pāṇini in recognition of his supreme position in the field of study he had made his own. Only once the epithet refers also to Kātyāyana (III. 2. 3; II. 97) (Kielhorn, *J.R.A.S.*, 1908, p. 503).

c6.18

Patañjali next applies to Pāṇini the significant epithet *Māṅgalika Āchārya* (I.1.1; I.3.1; I.253), a great teacher who commenced his treatise with a benedictory expression ensuring its continuity and development through the ages. There can be no doubt about Pāṇini's phenomenal success in the annals of human authorship, his work being greeted with universal approval: पाणिनोयं महत् सुविहितम् (*Bhāshya* IV.2.66; II.285). 'Superbly accomplished is the grand treatise of Pāṇini.' His grammar was acknowledged as of superior authority over the works of his predecessors (सूत्रकारश्च शब्दविदां मूर्द्धाभिषिक्तः *Padamañjarī* on IV.1.93); and soon it spread from the elementary to the highest stages of studies. Patañjali testifies to the popularity of Pāṇini's work by saying that it was on the lips of young pupils (*Ākumāraṁ yaśaḥ Pāṇineḥ*, I.4.89; I.347). The *Kāśikā* goes further and says on the basis of an old stock-example that the name of Pāṇini was acclaimed as authority all over the country पाणिनिशब्दः लोके प्रकाशते, इतिपाणिनि, II. 1.6.).

c6.19

Another epithet applied by Patañjali to Pāṇini is that he is a *Pramāṇabhūta Āchārya* (I. 1.39; I.39), a teacher of the highest authority. He says that Pāṇini approached his task with a full sense of responsibility: 'Purified by the *kuśa* grass held in hand, the *Āchārya* seated himself facing the sun and took infinite pains in composing each *sūtra*. Not one syllable is purposeless there, much less could a whole *sūtra* be' (I.1.1; I.39). This authoritative conception later on became the pivot of the maxim (*paribhāshā*) that the saving of half a *mātra* is regarded by the grammarians to be as gladdening as the birth of a son (*Paribhāshendu-śekhara*, No. 122). Pāṇini adopted the *sūtra* style of composition based on utmost brevity, but not losing clarity. He was the founder of a new system planned with its logical method and scientific technique to solve the intricacies of grammar and reduce them to simplicity and precision as far as possible. He remains eminently understandable in spite of the rigour and conciseness of his work.

c6.20

Patañjali also refers to the capacious intellect of Pāṇini by calling him an *Analpamati Āchārya* (I.4.51; I.335). It was by his comprehensive genius that Pāṇini was able to handle an almost unlimited range of linguistic material, subject it to masterly analysis, and reduce it to an order and system. His vigorous understanding and method have for ages disciplined and invigorated the minds of generations of Sanskrit scholars.

c6.21

Pantañjali also mentions the technical ability of Pāṇini by calling him a specialist in the forms of words and their meanings (*Vṛittajña Āchārya*, I.3.9; I.226). Pāṇini was possessed of a phenomenal insight (*mahatī sūkshmekshikā*, *Kāśikā*, IV.2.74) into the true meaning (*vṛitti*) of words in all their aspects and bearings as they were obtaining in the usage of the different localities, Vedic schools (*śākhās* and *charaṇas*), families (*gotras*), trades, professions and social classes of his times. We learn from Yuan Chwang that 'Ṛishi Pāṇini was from his birth extensively informed about men and things.' (*Siyuki*, I. 115). Pāṇini for the most part discovered and created his own material. He has applied his scientific method to the arrangement of this material by bringing the numerous *vṛittis* or derivative meanings of words under well-classified *gaṇas* or word-groups. It was a method, which, as pointed out by Whitney and Burnell, was unknown before him (Whitney, *Atharva Prāt.* p. 48; Burnell, *On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians*, p. 28). In fact, Pāṇini's name has gone down to posterity as the inventor of the device of the *Gaṇa-pāṭha*, which has done so much in the conservation of Sanskrit language and of its archaic and obsolete forms.

c6.22

Lastly, Patañjali applies the significant epithet *Subhṛit* (I. 2.32; I.208) to Pāṇini in reference to the simplicity of his style which makes an erudite work so easy of comprehension by its lucidity and logic.

c6.23

By his inner qualities of head and heart Pāṇini was able to appreciate the views of others in a spirit of detachment and with balanced judgment. He avoided extreme views and preferred the path of synthesis between conflicting theories. For example, it is well-known that the question whether a word denotes a whole class (*ākṛiti*) or only an individual (*vyakti*) was being debated amongst the grammarians at an early stage. Later on this became the subject of a sharp controversy between Vājapyāyana and Vyāḍi (*Bhāshya*, I.2.64; I.242,244), but Pāṇini seeing truth in either accepted both positions as explained by Patañjali.

c6.24

It may also be noted that Kātyāyana's epithet to Pāṇini has been also repeated at the end of Patañjali's work in the same spirit of homage: भगवतः पाणिनेराचार्यस्य सिद्धम्। (VIII.4.68; III.467).

c6.25

*Name.* The author of the *Ashṭādhyāyī* is universally known as Pāṇini. Kātyāyana and Patañjali use this name. According to Baudhāyana, Pāṇini is a *gotra* name included amongst the Vatsa-Bhṛigus, having five *Pravaras*, *viz.* Bhārgava, Chyāvana, Āpnavāna, Aurva and Jāmadagnya (*Pravara-kāṇḍa*, 3). Pāṇini's own *sūtra* mentioning Pāṇin (VI.4.165) suggests Pāṇini to be a *gotra* name. According to Kaiyaṭa's derivation a son of Paṇin was Pāṇina, and a *yuvan* descendant of his would be called Pāṇini (*Pradīpa* on I.1.73.6).

c6.26

The *Trikāṇḍaśesha* and *Keśava*, both later lexicons, mention Āhika, Śālaṅki, Dākshīputra and Śālātūrīya as the appellations of Pāṇini. We have no means to verify the correctness of the first two names. According to Weber the name Śālaṅki, which occurs in the *Bhāshya*, though it does not clearly appear that Pāṇini is meant by it, leads us to the Vāhīkas (*History of Sanskrit Literature*, p. 218). It would at least accord with the fact that Pāṇini was an Udīchya. The last two are well-known names of Pāṇini. Patañjali quotes a *kārikā* describing Pāṇini as Dākshīputra (*Dākshīputrasya Pāṇineḥ*, I.75) after the name of his mother who was of the Daksha *gotra*. Dāksheya also would be Pāṇini's metronymic.

c6.27

*THE DAKSHAS, A NORTHERN PEOPLE*—The Dakshas are referred to as a clan organised into *saṅgha* as is apparent from the following examples in the *Kāśikā*: *Dākshaḥ saṅghaḥ*, *Dākshaḥ aṅkaḥ*, *Dākshaṁ lakshaṇam* (IV. 3. 127). It also refers to a settlement of the Dakshas (*Dāksho ghoshaḥ*, IV.3.127), and as examples of the names of their villages are cited *Dākshi-kūla* and *Dākshi-karsha* (VI. 2. 129), seemingly old illustrations, since Patañjali likewise mentions *Dākshi-karshu* as the name of a village of which a resident was called *Dākshikarshuka* (IV. 2. 104; II. 294). That the Dakshas belonged to the north-west is suggested by the *Kāśikā's* discussion on *Saṁjñāyāṁ kanthośīnareshu* (II. 4. 20), citing a counter-example to show that the place named Dākshi-kanthā lay outside the geographical limits of Uśīnara. According to Pāṇini Uśīnara formed part of Vāhīka (IV. 2. 117, 118). That the Dakshas did not belong to the eastern part of India either is shown by another comment (*Kāśikā* on IV. 2. 113), where it is said that the Dakshas lived outside the Prāchya-Bharata region, i.e., towards the west. Patañjali's interpretation of Prāchya-Bharata on Pāṇini II. 4. 66 shows that the Prāchya country or eastern India began from the region of Bharata or Kuru-*janapada* (I. 493). Strictly speaking the Bharatas although residing in east Panjab were considered to form part of the Prāchyas. Thus proceeding from east to west we encounter the chain of the Prāchyas, Bharatas (region of Kurukshetra), Uśīnaras, Madras and Udīchyas. The *Gopatha Brāhmaṇa* mentions the Udīchyas with the Madras (*Gopatha*, I.2.10), and the two jointly formed Vāhīka. The Dakshas, as shown by the *Kāśikā*, lived outside the Prāchya country, outside the Bharata-*janapada*, and outside the Uśīnara land which was in Vāhīka, and have therefore to be located towards further west, some-where in Gandhāra. This lends support to the tradition that Pāṇini of the Daksha *gotra* was born at Śalātura, which lay a few miles to the north of the confluence of the Kabul with the Indus river. The area once occupied by the Dākshis may probably have been somewhere in the lower valley of the Kabul river, between Dakka and the present site of Śalātura.

c6.28

*ŚALĀTURA, THE BIRTH-PLACE OF PĀṆINI*—The term Śālātīrīya applied to Pāṇini preserves the tradition of his original home being at Śalātura. The antiquity of the place is carried back to the time of Pāṇini himself, who mentions Śalātura in a *sūtra* (IV.3.94) for the sake of the formation *Śālātīrīya* to denote a person whose ancestors were natives of that place (*abhijana*). Thus the town existed even before Pāṇini, and the place of his ancestors may be taken as the place of his own birth. Vardhamāna refers to Pāṇini as Śālātūrīya (*Gaṇaratnamahodadhi*, commentary on verse 2), and Bhāmaha and a Valabhī inscription also use this synonym for the grammarian (*Śālātūrīya-matam*, Bhāmaha; *Śālātūrīya-tantra*, Ins. of Śīlāditya VII of Valabhī, Fleet, *Corpus Inscript. Indi.* III, p. 175).

c6.29

Yuan Chwang visited Śalātura in the seventh century A.D. and found that the tradition about Pāṇini was current there. He writes, "To the north-west of U-to-kia-han-c'ho 20 li or so we come to the town of P'o-ls-tu-lo. This is the place where the Ṛishi Pāṇini, who composed the *Ching-ming-lun* (चिङ् मिङ् लुन्=शब्दविद्या) was born.' (Beal, *Siyuki*, I. p. 114; also footnote equating the symbol *p'o* for *so'*).

c6.30

Śalātura has been identified by Cunningham with Lahur,¹ a small town four miles north-west of Ohind, in the angle of the river Kabul meeting the Indus (*Ancient Geog.* pp. 66-7; *A.S.R.*, II.95). It can be approached from Jahangira station of the N. W. Ry. on the right bank of the Attock bridge from where it is about 12 miles. Buses plying between Mardan and Ohind pass by Lahur.

c6.31

¹ A Kharoshṭhī inscription now preserved in the Lahore Museum and dated in the Kushāṇa year 40 (118 A. D.) was found at Shakardarrā near Campbellpore. It mentions the boat-ferry of Śala (*Śalanokrama*, Sten Konow, *Kharoshṭhī Ins.* p. 160), which plied from the eastern bank of the Indus and derived its name from the town of Śalātura situated on the opposite side at some distance from the river. The name Shakardarrā may be derived from Śakradvāra meaning the 'entrance from the east.' There are several high mounds at Lahur, at one of which recent excavations by Madame Corbeau exposed some stucco Buddhist heads and Gandhāra terracottas. Yuan Chwang speaks of a statue of Ṛishi Pāṇini being in worship at Lahur. R. B. K. N. Dikshit first informed me that a life-size image in Gandhāra style, was previously found at a Lahur mound. It is only a Buddha image in Gandhāra style, now preserved in the Peshawar Museum, where I saw it in 1946.

c6.32

For about five hundred years Śalātura continued as a centre of Pāṇinian studies. According to Yuan Chwang, "The children of this town, who are his (Pāṇini's) disciples, revere his eminent qualities, and a statue erected to his memory still exists." (*Siyuki*, I.116).

c6.33

*TRADITION ABOUT PĀṆINI'S LIFE*—The Indian tradition about Pāṇini is embodied in the *Kathāsaritsāgara* of Somadeva (11th century) and the *Bṛihatkathāmañjarī* of Kshemendra (11th century) both of which were based on the original *Bṛihatkathā* of Guṇāḍhya. According to this, Pāṇini was a pupil of the teacher Varsha. He was not much known for his intelligence (*manda-buddhi*) and lagged behind in studies. Withdrawing for a time to the Himalayan seclusion he performed meditation and pleased Śiva who revealed to him a new system of grammar (*nava-vyākaraṇa*). His rival was Kātyāyana whom he finally overcame by his superior powers. Pāṇini's grammar eventually replaced the older Aindra system. He also became a friend of the Nanda emperor. This tradition is supported in detail by Yuan Chwang as shown below.

c6.34

*MAÑJUŚRĪ-MŪLAKALPA*—This work (c. 800 A.D.) refers to king Nanda, his learned council of Brahmin philosophers and to his intimacy with Pāṇini: "After him (Śūrasena) there will be king Nanda at Pushpa City. In the capital of the Magadharesidents there will be Brahman controversialists (*Brāhmaṇas-tārkikā bhuvi*, verse 425) . . . and the king will be surrounded by them. The king will give them riches. His minister was a Buddhist Brahmin Vararuchi who was of high soul, kind and good. His great friend was a Brahmin, Pāṇini by name." (Jayaswal, *Imperial History of India*, p. 14).

c6.35

*RĀJAŚEKHARA*—Rājaśekhara (c. 900 A.D.) gives further point to this tradition by saying that in the city of Pāṭaliputra there was an old institution called *Śāstrakāra-parīkshā*, the Board to examine authors of scientific systems. Before this Board appeared such great masters of grammar as Upavarsha, Varsha, Pāṇini, Piṅgala, Vyāḍi, Vararuchi and Patañjali. Examined (*parīkshitāḥ*) by this Board they attained fame.¹ These names embody literary history over a long period.

c6.36

¹ श्रूयते च पाटलिपुत्रे शास्त्रकार परीक्षा—

c6.37

Upavarsha was a commentator on the Mīmāṁsā and Vedānta *sūtras* (Jacobi, *J.A.O.S.*, 1912, p. 15; cf. *Śaṅkara-Bhāshya*, III.3.53). His views about *śabda* are preserved to us in a citation by Śaṅkarāchārya who refers to him as *Bhagavān* Upavarsha (I.3.28). Varsha, his brother is said to have been Pāṇini's teacher. Pāṇini as a Śāstrakāra and author of a new grammatical system would have submitted his work to this learned assembly of Pāṭaliputra. Piṅgala, the author of the *Chhando-vichiti*, a name at present included in the *Gaṇa-pāṭha* of IV.3.73, is spoken of as Pāṇini's younger brother (*anuja*) by Shaḍguruśishya in the *Vedārthadīpikā* commentary. Vyāḍi the author of the *Saṅgraha-sūtra*, a known work on Grammar and highly spoken of in the *Bhāshya* (cf. Patañjali on the meaning of *Siddha* decided in the *Saṅgraha*, I.6; also *Śobhanā khalu Dākshāyaṇasya Saṅgrahasya kṛitiḥ*, I.468) was a junior contemporary of Pāṇini. Vyāḍi wrote his *Saṅgraha* in the *sūtra* style as is evident from Patañjali's reference to students called *Sāṅgrahasūtrikas*, (those who studied the *Saṅgraha-sūtras*, IV.2.60; II.284). Kātyāyana and Patañjali are well-known grammarians. Thus the order in which these names are mentioned may be taken to be that of chronology. Patañjali who is a known contemporary of Pushyamitra Śuṅga of the second century B.C. is the last of this exalted race of grammarians.

c6.38

*ACCOUNT OF YUAN CHWANG*—The sources of information about Pāṇini's life are rather meagre and they should be supplemented by other sources that are available. Yuan Chwang is such a source and his account needs careful study. Most of the traditions recorded above are repeated by Yuan Chwang. The Chinese traveller visited Śalātura in person and

c6.39

अत्रोपवर्षवर्षाविह पाणिनिपिङ्गलाविह व्याडिः ।
वररुचि पतंजली इह परीक्षिताः ख्यातिमुपजग्मुः ॥ *Kāvyamīmāṁsā.*

c6.40

the information collected by him on the spot may be regarded as trustworthy, specially on points where Somadeva, Rājaśekhara, *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa* and the Chinese traveller are in accord.

c6.41

Having stated that Ṛishi Pāṇini who composed the *Śabdavidyā* was born at Śalātura, Yuan Chwang proceeds to say:

c6.42

'Referring to the most ancient times, letters were very numerous; but when, in the process of ages, the world was destroyed and remained as a void, the Devas of long life descended spiritually to guide the people. Such was the origin of the ancient letters and composition. From this time and after it the source (*of language*) spread and passed its (*former*) bounds. Brahma Deva and Śakra (*Devendra*) established rules (*forms or examples*) according to the requirements. Ṛishis belonging to different schools each drew up forms of letters. Men in their successive generations put into use what had been delivered to them; but nevertheless students without ability (*religious ability*) were unable to make use (*of these characters*). And now men's lives were reduced to the length of a hundred years, when the Ṛishi Pāṇini was born; he was from birth extensively informed about things (*men and things*). The times being dull and careless, he wished to reform the vague and false rules (*of writing and speaking*)—to fix the rules and correct improprieties. As he wandered about asking for right ways, he encountered Iśvara Deva and recounted to him the plan of his undertaking. Iśvara Deva said, "Wonderful! I will assist you in this." The Ṛishi, having received instruction, retired. He then laboured incessantly and put forth all his power of mind. He collected a multitude of words, and made a book on letters which contained a thousand *ślokas*: each *śloka* was of thirty-two syllables. It contained everything known from the first till then, without exception, respecting letters and words. He then closed it and sent it to the king (*supreme ruler*), who exceedingly prized it, and issued an edict that throughout the kingdom it should be used and taught to others;

c6.43

and he added that whoever should learn it from beginning to end should receive as his reward a thousand pieces of gold. And so from that time masters have received it and handed it down in its completeness for the good of the world. Hence the Brāhmaṇas of this town are well grounded in their literary work, and are of high renown for their talents, well informed as to things (*men and things*), and of a vigorous understanding (*memory*).' (*Siyuki*, pp. 114-115).

c6.44

The Pāṇinian tradition was still current even after the lapse of about eight centuries after Patañjali. Yuan Chwang faithfully repeats the much older tradition contained in the *Mahābhāshya* with regard to the spread of Vedic learning in all its offshoots and branches, the origin of grammar, the growth of the Aindra system, chaos produced by different grammatical schools, and finally the emergence at this crisis of Pāṇini with his new grammar, his eminent qualities and method. (1) *ORIGIN OF ANCIENT LETTERS*—Yuan Chwang's account of the primeval beginning of knowledge is in the nature of introductory remarks. This accords with the tradition almost universal in India regarding the divine origin of different *śāstras* and the divine guidance received in the propagation of knowledge. Patañjali also transposes the scene to the divine world when he refers to the period of a thousand years of gods (*divya-varsha-sahasra*) during which time Bṛihaspati expounded the subject of letters (*śabda-pārāyaṇaṁ provācha*) to his divine pupil Indra (*Bhāshya*, I.5.).

c6.45

(2) *GROWTH OF LITERATURE*—'From this time .... the source (*of language*) spread and passed its former (*bounds*).' This is supported by Patañjali's account of the vast expansion of language after the first impulse to it was received from divine revelation, He writes:¹ 'Here is the

c6.46

¹ सप्तद्वीपा वसुमती त्रयो लोकाश्चत्वारो वेदाः सांगाः सरहस्या बहुधा विभिन्ना एकशतमध्वर्युशाखाः सहस्रवर्त्मा सामवेद एकविंशतिधा बाह्वृच्यं नवधाथर्वणो वेदो वाकोवाक्यमितिहासः पुराणं वैद्यकमित्येतावाञ्छब्दस्य प्रयोगविषयः।

(*Bhāshya*, 1.9)

c6.47

wide world comprising seven divisions; its rich literature including the four Vedas with their *Aṅgas* and mystic portions, their ramifications into 101 *śākhās* of *Yajurveda*, 1000 of *Sāmaveda*, 21 of *Ṛigveda*, 9 of *Atharvaveda*, the Dialogue portions, *Itihāsa*, *Purāṇa* and *Vaidyaka* treatises constitutes the expansive source of language.' It is true that even before the time of Pāṇini Sanskrit literature had reached a stage of considerable development, as we shall see in examining the literary evidence.

c6.48

(3) AINDRA SYSTEM—The tradition of an Aindra grammar prior to Pāṇini is strong in Sanskrit literature. It is found in the *Taittirīya Saṁhitā* where it is said that the gods approached Indra to elucidate speech (*vāchaṁ vyākuru*). Patañjali speaks of Bṛihaspati expounding to Indra the words by means of individual forms or examples (*pratipadokta śabda*, I.5; almost literally rendered by Yuan Chwang). The tradition in the *Ṛiktantra*, a *Prātiśākhya* work of the *Sāmaveda*, is more to the point: Brahmā taught Bṛihaspati; Bṛihaspati taught Indra; Indra taught Bhāradvāja; and from him the system devolved on the Ṛishis.' (*Ṛiktantra*, Dr. Suryakant's edition, Lahore, p. 3). Here also Brahmā as Prajāpati is the ultimate source of knowledge. Indra represents the divine agency. The school of Bṛihaspati was continued through his descendant *Bhāradvāja* who initiated other teachers in the system. There certainly existed a Bhāradvāja school of grammar, Pāṇini himself citing the opinion of Bhāradvāja (VII.2.63). Patañjali frequently quotes the *vārttikas* of the Bhāradvājīyas (*i.e.* followers of the Bhāradvāja system, as Pāṇinīyas were of Pāṇini) as giving a version variant from that of Kātyāyana (III.1.38; II.46; III.1.89; II.70, etc.). The *Ṛik Prātiśākhya*, which is generally regarded as prior to Pāṇini, also refers to the opinion of Bhāradvāja who seems to have been an adherent of the earlier Aindra system. The legendary accounts of the *Kathāsaritsāgara* and the *Bṛihatkathāmañjarī* also mention that it was the Aindra school which was supplanted by Pāṇini's work.

c6.49

Thus we find strong support for Yuan Chwang's allusion to the establishment of rules by Indra. The existence of the Aindra system has been dealt with in detail by Burnell (*On the Aindra System of Sanskrit Grammarians*).

c6.50

(4) *DIFFERENT SCHOOLS BEFORE PĀṆINI*—‘Ṛishis belonging to different schools each drew up forms of letters.’ This refers to the intense literary activity about words and language preceding Pāṇini in which hundreds of great teachers including such names as Śākaṭāyana, Gārgya, Yāska, Śaunaka, Śākalya, Bhārdvāja, Āpiśali, Audavraji, participated. Burnell's list of teachers from the *Nirukta*, Pāṇini and the *Taittirīya-Prātiśākhya* (*Aindra School*, pp. 32-33) considered together with the list of numerous phonetic treatises and the terminological literature (cf. Dr. Sūryakānta Sāstri, Intro. to *Laghu-Ṛiktantra*) furnishes evidence of the strong intellectual activity which preceded and followed the genesis of the Pāṇinīya *śāstra*. (See also for a list of 64 Teachers quoted in the *Prātiśākhyas*, *Nirukta* and Pāṇini, Max Muller's *History of Sanskrit Literature*, pp. 142-43).

c6.51

(5) *COMPARATIVE DECAY OF GRAMMATICAL STUDIES*—‘Men in their successive generations put into use what had been delivered to them. And now mens' lives were reduced to the length of a hundred years . . . . The times being dull and careless.’ Patañjali also refers to *purā-kalpa* (by-gone ages) when keen Brahmanical pupils devoted themselves first to master *Vyākaraṇa*, and then took up the study of the Veda. But in a subsequent epoch students devoted less attention to grammar; they even considered it useless (*anarthakaṁ vyākaraṇam*). It was to reform such dull and careless students that Pāṇini wrote (*vipratipanna-buddhibhyo' dhyetṛibhya āchārya idaṁ śāstram anvāchashte*, Pat. I.5.). As to the lessening of mens' lives to a hundred years, Yuan Chwang is almost literally rendering Patañjali's remarks:

c6.52

*Kim punaradyatve yaḥ sarvathā chiraṁ jīvati sa varsha-śataṁ jīvati* (I.5.).

c6.53

'What to speak of the present times when the maximum span of human life is reduced to only one hundred years!' Pāṇini's object 'to fix the rules and correct improprieties' is supported by Kātyāyana referring to the *Ashṭādhyāyī* as *sādhvanuśāsana śāstra* 'the book of correct instruction' (*vārttika*, I.1.44. 14; 1.104). Possibly it contains an allusion to Pāṇini's ministering to the normal speech current in his time.

c6.54

(6) *PĀṆINI'S METHOD*—'Pāṇini was from his birth extensively informed about men and things. He wandered about asking for knowledge. He collected a multitude of words.' This information is valuable as it acquaints us with the fact that Pāṇini for the most part discovered and created his own material, making minute observations of facts in the course of his travels on a linguistic mission. We find in Pāṇini organism and life, an elastic and warm-hearted approach to the speech of the common people bringing in a vast and varied material about their life. A closer study of the *Ashṭādhyāyī* as attempted in the following pages reveals how Pāṇini had explored and exploited all possible sources of linguistic material in the country including dialects, folk-lore and local customs, e.g. names of Yakshas like Viśāla used as personal names (V.3.84); *pīlu-kuṇa*, a name for ripe berries of the Pīlu tree (V.2.24); eastern sports, and names of coins, weights and measures, etc. His recording of the differences in the accentuation of names of wells situated on the right and left banks of the river Beas is a true pointer to his painstaking method, on which the author of the *Kāśikā* observes: 'the *Sūtrakāra* was endowed with deep and subtle insight.'

c6.55

महती सूक्ष्मेक्षिका वर्तते सूत्रकारस्य। (IV.2.74).

c6.56

Pāṇini's travels in search of facts from the living language and the method of personal discussion and interrogation to elicit information were in the manner of the true Takshaśilā style, which was marked by a practical bias in the pursuit of academic studies. We have a graphic account in Buddhist literature describing how the royal physician Jīvaka was directed by his teacher to examine the plants in the region of Takshaśilā as sources of medicine (*Mahāvagga*, VIII.1.6 ff). Born at Śalātura as he was, Pāṇini must have been brought up in the academic tradition of Takshaśilā which was a far-famed centre of learning in that period. In one of the Jātakas we are told how students after completing their studies at Takshaśilā, wandered far and wide, acquiring all practical uses of arts, and understanding the various country observances (*Takkasilaṁ gantvā uggahita-sippā tato nikkhamitvā sabbasamaya-sippañ cha desachārittañ cha jānissāmāti anupubbena chārikaṁ charantā*, *Jāt.* V.247).

c6.57

(7) *PĀṆINI AND MAHEŚVARA*—The information that Pāṇini possessed a well-conceived ‘plan of his undertaking’ which was highly approved of by Īśvara Deva is of importance in crediting the grammarian with his full share of independent and original thinking in the execution of the *Ashṭādhyāyī*. The legend of Īśvara Deva indicates the traditional divine help usually associated with all pious undertakings. ‘The Ṛishi having received instruction, retired.’ It points to the period of Pāṇini’s intellectual labour and single-minded devotion to his work in quiet surroundings (*śuchāv-avakāśe*, *Bhāshya*, I.39).

c6.58

(8) *PĀṆINI’S EFFORT*—‘He then laboured incessantly and put forth all his power of mind.’ It is almost a literal translation of Patañjali’s remark about Pāṇini taking great pains in making his *sūtras*: *Pramāṇa-bhūta āchāryaḥ mahatā yatnena sutraṁ praṇayati sma* (I.1.1; I.39). There can be no doubt about Pāṇini putting forth supreme effort to produce a work of such comprehensive nature and brevity as the *Ashṭādhyāyī*.

c6.59

(9) *PĀṆINI’S MENTAL POWERS*—Yuan Chwang speaks of Pāṇini’s spirit and wisdom, and of his vigorous mind which he devoted to investigate worldly literature (*Siyuki*, I.116). We have already spoken about Patañjali’s tribute to Pāṇini as *analpamati āchārya*, explained by Kaiyaṭa as *medhāvī*, ‘endowed with great understanding and memory.’ We may confidently dismiss the story of Pāṇini being dull at school. Moreover, the information that Pāṇini was extensively informed about men and things from his very birth indicates his inherent practical turn of mind and aptitude for observation amply borne out by the contents of the *Ashṭādhyāyī*.

c6.60

(10) *EXTENT OF PĀṆINI'S WORK*—‘He made a book on letters which contained a thousand *ślokas*; each *śloka* was of thirty-two syllables.’ It indicates the extent of Pāṇini's *Ashṭādhāyī* consisting of 3,981 *sūtras* plus 14 *pratyāhāra sūtras*, computed by the *śloka* measure of 32 syllables each. Sköld has somewhat misunderstood this. He writes: ‘This curious statement can hardly be interpreted in another way than assuming, that the work of Pāṇini, just as so many other Indian works on grammar, was originally written in metrical form.’ (*Papers on Pāṇini*, p. 32). This is an untenable inference. As a matter of fact no Indian grammar, Sanskrit or Prakrit, is in metrical form. The *Ashṭādhyāyī* was originally written in *sūtra* style, and its bulk from the beginning was very nearly 1,000 *ślokas*, *as it is to-day*. The statement is akin to the computation of Vyāḍi’s *Saṅgraha*, also in *sūtras*, as *laksha-ślokātmaka*. The *Kāśikā* on IV.2.65 says that not only Pāṇini’s work but those of Kāśakṛitsna and Vyāghrapāda also were in *sūtra* style (*Daśakaṁ Vaiyāghrapadīyam; Trikaṁ Kāśakṛitsnam*). Even up to a late period grammatical works were being written in *sūtra* form.

c6.61

(11) *PĀṆINI'S WORK, A COMPLETE DIGEST*—‘It contained everything known from the first till then, without exception, respecting letters and words.’ Pāṇini’s work is rightly described by Patañjali as a vast ocean of science (*mahat śāstraugha, Bhāshya*, I.1.1, I.40); also vast and well-done (*Pāṇinīyaṁ mahat-suvihitam*, IV.2.66; II.285). He also describes how Pāṇini’s work was based upon the material available in the different schools of Vedic learning so that it became acceptable to all of them (*Sarva-veda-pārishadaṁ hīdaṁ śāstram, Bhāshya*, II.1.58; I.400).

c6.62

Burnell truly points out that for the *Ashṭādhyāyī* to have gained such a position of authority, ‘it must have been vastly superior in the eyes of the Brāhmaṇas to all the numerous treatises which must have been in existence before Pāṇini’s time.’ (*Aindra School*, p. 38). Pawate has recently raised the question of Pāṇini’s borrowings from his predecessors, a point which deserves much further consideration (cf. *Structure of the Ashṭādhyāyī* by I. S. Pawate, Hubli). We find in the *Ṛiktantra*, a *Sāma Prātiśākhya* which Dr. Sūrya Kānt attributes to Audavraji some of Pāṇini’s *sūtras* quoted almost *verbatim* (cf. *Ṛiktantra*, *sūtras* 195-218).

c6.63

(12) *PĀṆINI AND PĀṬALIPUTRA*—‘He then closed it and sent it to the king (*supreme ruler*), who exceedingly prized it.’ The *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa*, Somadeva, and Tārānātha all relate the story of Pāṇini’s friendship with one of the Nanda kings. Rājaśekhara records a tradition, already referred to, showing Pāṇini’s connection with Pāṭaliputra. It is likely that Pāṇini visited Pāṭaliputra in person to participate in the *Śāstrakāra-parīkshā* rather than send his book through an emissary, Pāṭaliputra held a pre-eminent position in the literary life of the nation during the Nanda and Maurya periods. Chāṇakya, a resident of the distant North-West like Pāṇini himself, and nurtured in the glorious traditions of the Takshśilā school, also visited Pāṭaliputra. The *Atthapakāsinī* commentary of the Simhalese *Mahāvaṁsa* narrating the early life of Chāṇakya relates how during the course of his intellectual career to establish his reputation he was attracted to visit Pāṭaliputtra: (*vādaṁ paryesanto Pupphapuram gantvā*).¹

c6.64

¹ I am grateful for this reference to Śrī C. D. Chatterji, M.A., History Department, Lucknow University.

c6.65

We may take it that Pāṇini’s mission to the celebrated capital of the Magadhan empire was not very different from that of Chāṇakya, *viz.* a desire to have his work valued by the most competent judges gathered at the court of Pāṭaliputra. *THE GREAT SYNOD* (*Sabhā*)—It is interesting to note that this academic institution continued even in the time of the Mauryan emperors of Pāṭaliputra, as indicated by Megasthenes and other Greek writers. In the words of Megasthenes the Brāhmaṇas "are employed publicly by kings at what is called the Great Synod where at the beginning of the new year, all the philosophers are gathered together, and any philosopher *who may have committed any useful suggestion to writing*, or observed any means of improving the crops and cattle, or for promoting the public interests, declare it publicly." (*Strabo*, XV.1., McCrindle, *Megasthenes*, Frag. XXXIII). Diodorus also refers to these distinguished gatherings at the beginning of each new year in which the learned men participated and the sovereign of the land acted as patron (McCrindle, *Megasthenes*, Frag. I, p. 39). These statements corroborate the Sanskrit and Pāli accounts of the congregation at Pāṭaliputra, and Rājaśekhara's *Śāstrakāra-parīkshā* very nearly corresponds to the functions of the Great Synod described by Megasthenes. The time of its meeting is recorded as the beginning of each new year. Very probably the technical term for this Synod and the Board responsible for the *Śāstrakāra-parīkshā* was *Sabhā*, as in the expressions *Chandragupta-sabhā* and *Pushyamitra-sabhā* used by Patañjali (I.77; see also *var. lect.* at p. 515)¹ and also *Rāja-sabhā* by Pāṇini in *sūtra* II, 4.23 (*sabhā rājamanushya-pūrvā*).

c6.66

¹ Chandra cites *Chandragupta-sabhā* only on his *sūtra* II.2.69 corresponding to Pāṇini, II.4.23.

c6.67

(13) *RECOGNITION OF LEARNING*—Victors at these synods who distinguished themselves publicly by producing a scientific contribution 'committed to writing' which promoted public interest or was conducive of general welfare, must have deserved to be adequately rewarded. Speaking in general it is said that "in requital of their services they receive valuable gifts and privileges.' (*Diodorus*, Frag. I, p. 38). Megasthenes in continuation of his account of the Great Assembly specifically writes: "He who gives sound advice is exempted from paying any taxes or contributions." (Meg. Frag. XXXIII).

c6.68

We have a suggestive word in Patañjali, *viz.* *Sābhā-sannayanaḥ*, ‘the honour derived from literary exposition in a *Sabhā*, (I.1.73; I.189). Pāṇini himself uses the word *sannayana* in the special sense of *sammānana* (I.3.36), *i.e.* bestowal of honour on successful exposition of a *śāstra* (cf. *Kāśikā* on *sammānana*, I.3.36).

c6.69

Yuan Chwang speaks of a thousand pieces of gold as the reward received by one who mastered the *Ashṭādhyāyī* from beginning to end. *Sūtra* VI.2.65 (*Saptamī-hāriṇau dharmye’haraṇe*) presupposes a customary payment of this nature called *dharmya* and speaks of its recipient as *hārin*, one who took away the *dharmya* prize (*āchāra-niyataṁ deyaṁ yaḥ svīkaroti*, *Kāśikā*). The rule prescribes acute accent on the first syllable of the word denoting the recipient. One of the stock-illustrations cited by Patañjali actually makes the *vaiyākaraṇa* or grammarian a recipient (*hārin*), and speaks of an elephant as his customary fee (*Bhāshya*, VI.2.52; III.130; *Kāśikā*, VI.2.65, *vaiyākaraṇa-hastī*). The gift of an elephant as a prize could have originated only in the east of India. Kauṭilya mentions 1,000 silver pieces as the reward of learning (*vidyāvataḥ pūjā-vetana*, *Arth.* V. 3; p. 248).

c6.70

The above detailed analysis shows that the tradition recorded by Yuan Chwang was based upon facts of Pāṇini’s life as known at that time.

c6.71

*PĀṆINI AS A POET*—There is a tradition that Pāṇini was also a poet. It is suggested by certain verses cited from a poem named *Jāmbavatījaya* attributed to Pāṇini in certain anthologies. A verse in the *Sadukti-karṇāmṛita* refers to Dākshīputra as a poet. The available information with regard to Pāṇini as a poet is put together by Pischel (*Z.D.M.G.*, XXXIX pp. 95 and ff.) who is inclined to accept the theory that Pāṇini was also a poet. Bhandarkar, on the other hand, holds that the style in which the verses ascribed to Pāṇini are written is sufficient to prove that they cannot be by that grammarian (*J.B.B.R.A.S.*, XVI, p. 344). Prof. Kshitis Chandra Chatterji holds the same view and after discussing at length all the known verses assigned to Pāṇini dismisses the theory of his authorship in these words: "The fact that Pāṇini as a poet is nowhere mentioned in the *Mahābhāshya* or in any of the later first-rate works of the Pāṇini school and that annotators and commentators have racked their brains to explain away ungrammatical forms instead of regarding the uses in the *Jāmbavatīvijaya* as *jñāpakas*, that some of the verses attributed to Pāṇini in one anthology are attributed to other poets in others, that some of these verses show distinct traces of borrowings of a much later period, that none of the verses belonging to the *Jāmbavatīvijaya* bear the stamp of the grammarian on them, that some of them contain forms which would make Pāṇini shudder, and that some of them seem to be composed as examples for a work on rhetoric of a much later period, clearly indicate that the verses cannot have been the work of poet Pāṇini. The *Jāmbavatīvijaya-kāvya* or the *Pātālavijaya-kāvya* must have been composed by a poetaster of about the ninth century A.D. who made use of many peculiar grammatical forms in it and fathered it on Pāṇini, the great grammarian." (*Cal. Oriental Journal*, Vol. I, pp. 22-23; also p. 135).

c6.72

We may, however, note that in a *kārikā* of the *Bhāshya*, Pāṇini is referred to as a *kavi*: *tadakīrtitam-ācharitaṁ kavinā* (I.4.50; I.334). But the meaning of *kavi* is not necessarily a poet. Although the *Kāśikā* equates *kavi* with the *sūtra-kāra*, both Kaiyaṭa and Nāgeśa understand *kavi* not as a poet, but as one possessed of supreme wisdom (*medhāvī*).

c6.73

*THE ASHṬĀDHYĀYĪ:* (i) *Its Name.*—The *Ashṭādhyāyī* is differently designated as (1) *Ashṭaka* (*ashṭāv-adhyāyāḥ parimāṇamasya sūtrasya*, V.1.58); (2) *Pāṇinīya* (*Pāṇininā proktam*, IV.3.101); (3) *Vṛittisūtra* (*Bhāshya* I.371 differentiating *Vṛittisūtra* from *vārttika*).

c6.74

In the illustrations to several *sūtras*, the *Kāśikā* speaks of the Pāṇinīya system as an *akālaka grammar* (*Pāṇinyupajñam akālakaṁ vyākaraṇam*, II.4.21, IV.3.115 and VI.2.14). The name is significant as showing that Pāṇini wisely excluded from his purview the discussion of *kāla* or tenses like *Paroksha* (Perfect) and *Vartamāna* (Present), on the exact definition of which subtle and elaborate arguments were often advanced by grammarians (cf. *Bhāshya*, III.2.115; II.120, III.2.123; II.123). ‘Some say *Paroksha* means the lapse of a century; others say that which is screened from the eye of the speaker is *Paroksha*; still others contend that an interval of two to three days constitutes *Paroksha*’ (*Bhāshya*, II.120). Pāṇini took a practical view in the matter, as indeed he did in the case of other extreme views also. In the *Sūtra-kāṇḍa* (I.2.51.57) he says that it is not within the province of the grammarian to lay down rules (*aśishyam*) about particulars of time and tense durations, since he must depend on the usage of the day (*saṁjñā-pramāṇa*) for such regulations. This position of Pāṇini expressed in the *sūtra ‘Kālopasarjane cha tulyam’* (I.2.57) must have been responsible for the epithet *akālaka* applied to his grammar.

c6.75

(ii) *TEXT*—The text of the *sūtras* has been handed down to us almost intact by the method of oral transmission by which Sanskrit learning through the ages has descended from generation to generation through a succession of teachers and pupils (*guru-śishya-pāramparya*) instead of being conserved in writing. This method of oral teaching of Pāṇini continued for many centuries and Yuan Chwang noticed it as prevailing in his time also: “And so from that time masters have received it and handed it down in its completeness for the good of the world.” (Siyuki, I.115).

c6.76

According to the author of the *Svarsiddhānta-chandrikā* the *Ashtādhyāyī* consists of 3,995 *sūtras*, *i.e.* 3,981 *sūtras* and the 14 *pratyāhāra-sūtras*.¹ Böhtlingk's critical edition contains 3,983 *sūtras*. Dr. Kielhorn after a detailed enquiry into the text of the *Ashṭādhyāyī* came to the conclusion that "the text given in the *Kāśikā-vṛitti* (and that of the *Ashṭādhyāyī* in the editions) contains 20 more *sūtras* than the original text." (*Ind. Antiquary*, XVI.184). This increase is accounted for in two ways, *viz.* (1) by applying the principle of *yoga-vibhāga* or splitting into two what Pāṇini originally read as a single *sūtra*, and (2) by introducing some *vārttikas* as full-fledged *sūtras* in the present text of the *Ashṭādhyāyī*.² There is also evidence of retouching of some of the *sūtras* by introducing into them some words from the *vārttikas*.

c6.77

¹ *Chatuḥ-sahasrī sūtrāṇāṁ pañcha-sūtra-vivarjitā, Ashṭādhyāyī Pāṇinīyā sūtrair-māheśvaraiḥ saha* . . . (*Svarasiddhānta-chandrikā*, p. 3, verse 15, Annamalai Un.). ‘The Text of the Ashṭādhyāyī’ by K. Madhava Krishna Sharma, *J.U.P.H.S.*, July, 1940, pp. 52-65.

First 76 of 96 passages. Read on

Linked texts (20)