India as Known to Panini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashtadhyayi c6.85

c6.85

On the other hand the text of the *gaṇas*, especially of those which were called *ākṛiti gaṇas* (*i.e.* of which the list was left open by Pāṇini himself), did lend themselves to later additions. Patañjali distinguishes two kinds of *gaṇas*, firstly those fixed (*paṭhyante*) by Pāṇini, and secondly those which were only illustrative (*ākṛiti*).¹ The process of interpolation must naturally have been more freely operating in the case of groups which were of linguistic importance, as *Ardharchādi* (II.4.31), *Gaurādi* (IV.1.41), *Tārakādi* (V.2.36). On the other hand, *gaṇas* containing lists of proper names were comparatively more stable, as they tended to become obsolete in time. Pāṇini's names of *gotras* could be verified in the light of lists given in the oldest *Śrauta-sūtra* text of Baudhāyana in the *Mahāpravara-kāṇḍa*. Groups in which geographical names predominate (e.g. *Dāmanyādi* and *Takshaśilādi*) can to some extent be verified from the mention of those place-names in old independent sources, as the Pāli literature, the *Mahābhārata* and the accounts of the early Greek writers. A large percentage of place-names in the *gaṇas* is undoubtedly archaic, and in many cases not traceable outside the *Ashṭādhyāyī*. For example, the tribe of the *Sāvitrīputrakas* in the *gaṇa Dāmanyādi* (V.3.116) must date from Pāṇini himself, as it is unknown in literature except in one passage of the Karṇa-parvan (*Mbh.*, 5. 49). At any rate the possibility of fresh accretions to lists of *janapadas* and place-names was considerably less after their examination by Patañjali.