India as Known to Panini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashtadhyayi c6.93

c6.93

Patañjali also makes the interesting assumption that Pāṇini himself was responsible for explaining some of his *sūtras* to his pupils in two different ways. As an example may be cited the rule I.4.1, *Ākaḍārādekā samjñā*. Patañjali enquires why there should be a doubt about the correct wording, and remarks that the Āchārya (Pāṇini) had taught his pupils both the alternative readings of the *sūtra* (*ubhayathā hyāchāryeṇa śishyāḥ sūtraṁ pratipāditāḥ*, I.296). Even Kātyāyana was acquainted with the alternative wordings of this rule (*cf. vārttikas* 1 and 9 on I.4.1.), for which he must have depended on a still earlier source, most likely Pāṇini’s own explanation. In *sūtra* V.1.50 (*Tad-dharati . . . bhārād-vaṁśādibhyaḥ*), we have an example of the same rule being interpreted by the *Kāśikā* in two different ways, on the authority of an unnamed commentary (*aparā vṛitti*), which occasioned its remark that both the meanings of the *sūtra* were expounded by Pāṇini himself to his pupils. (*Sūtr-ārtha-dvayam-api chaitad-āchāryeṇa śishyāḥ pratipāditāḥ*). The same unnamed commentary (*aparā vṛitti*) further provides an alternative, but equally authoritative, explanation of *sūtra* V.1.94 (*Tadasya Brahmacharyam*), on which the *Kāśikā* repeats the same statement (*ubhayam api pramāṇam ubhayathā sūtra-praṇayanāt*). The case of *sūtra* V.4.21 is similar. These instances show that Pāṇini became the originator of a tradition of *sūtra* explanation which was handed down through an unbroken succession of Pāṇinīya teachers and pupils following that system (*Tadadhīte tadveda*). We have already seen that in respect of the signs of vowels, nasalisation and *svarita* accent on them, the Pāṇinīya grammar relied on an oral tradition which must have originated with Pāṇini himself as a teacher (*Pratijñ-ānunāsikyāḥ Pāṇinīyāḥ*, and *Pratijñā-svaritāḥ Pāṇinīyāḥ*, *Kāśikā* on I.3.2 and 11). Kaiyaṭa’s comment on the *śloka-vārttika*, *tad-analpa-mater-vachanaṁ smarata* (I.4.51; I.335), points to the unbroken continuity of the tradition (*āgamsya avichchhedam*). He also remarks that his own *Pradīpa* commentary on the *Bhāshya* was composed in accordance with the tradition (*yath-āgamaṁ vidhāsye*, Introductory Verses).