Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians, their Place in the Sanskrit and Subordinate Literatures c7: IV

On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians, their Place in the Sanskrit and Subordinate Literatures c7

Language
English

Contents

IV

c7.1

I shall now try to enumerate the different treatises in Sanskrit and other languages which appear to attach themselves to the Aindra or older Grammar. I shall do so briefly, as several of the most important are known by editions that have nothing remaining to be said, and others in MSS. are as yet beyond my reach or are of comparatively little value. We may reasonably expect to see in a few years more, sufficient descriptions of the Sanskrit and Pali MSS. known at present by name only, and then I may hope to be able to continue what I have here begun, and to attempt to show the historical development of the Aindra as opposed to the Pāṇinīya grammar. To begin with the Phonetic treatises—first in Sanskrit we have the tracts called Çikṣā, most of which have been only recently discovered. Those actually known are mentioned in ordinary type; those only known by quotation are in spaced type.

I. Sanskrit

a. Çikṣās

c7.s1.t1.1

| 1. Amoghanandinī çikṣā²) | Kātyāyanaçikṣā⁴) |
| Āraṇyakaçikṣā³) | Kāhalaçikṣā⁵) |
| C. | 5. Keçavī çikṣā⁶) |

c7.s1.t1.2

² Rājendralāl Mitra, “Notices” i., p. 72.

c7.s1.t1.3

³ Mysore Cat. No. 51.

c7.s1.t1.4

⁴ Rājendralāl Mitra, “Report”, p. 18.

c7.s1.t1.5

⁵ Mentioned in the C. on the Siddhāntaçikṣā.

c7.s1.t1.6

⁶ Rājendralāl Mitra, “Report”, p. 18.

c7.s1.t1.7

Kauçikī çikṣā¹) Gautamī çikṣā²) Taittirīyaçikṣā (?)³) Nāradaçikṣā⁴) C. (Nāradīyaçikṣāvivaraṇa by Çobhākara⁵)
10. Pāṇinīyaçikṣā, two recensions⁶) a. Ṛgveda b. Yajurveda CC. by Çesha and another⁷) there is also a C. by Sāyaṇa (‘Çikṣābhāshya’)⁸) C. (Svaravigraha)⁹) Pārāçaraçikṣā¹⁰) Bodhāyanaçikṣā¹¹) Bhāradvājaçikṣā¹²) — Vyākhyāna¹³)

c7.s1.t1.8

¹ “Notices,” i., p. 72.

c7.s1.t1.9

² Haug, “Ueber das Wesen” u. s. w. p. 61, n. 1. This exists in the Tamil country.

c7.s1.t1.10

³ Whitney, “Taitt. Prātiç.” p. 435 (cfr. xx., 12). See also extracts from a similar work quoted in the C. of the Ath. pr. (ed. Whitney, p. 261).

c7.s1.t1.11

⁴ See my “Catalogue” p. 42. Haug u. s. p. 55, n. 1 “Notices”, i., p. 73. Profr. Haug’s remarks render it probable that two recensions exist.

c7.s1.t1.12

⁵ “Notices”, i., p. 73.

c7.s1.t1.13

⁶ Both edited by Profr. Weber—“Indische Studien” iv., pp. 345-371.

c7.s1.t1.14

⁷ Gujarat Catalogue (by Bühler), i., p. 206 (No. 56) and p. 210 (No. 75).

c7.s1.t1.15

⁸ N. W. Prov. Catalogue, pp. 14 and 34 (Nos. 46 and 102).

c7.s1.t1.16

⁹ Oudh Catalogue, iv., p. 6.

c7.s1.t1.17

¹⁰ “Report”, p. 18.

c7.s1.t1.18

¹¹ Mentioned in C. on Siddhānta çikṣā. See my Catalogue, p. 9.

c7.s1.t1.19

¹² My Catalogue, p. 8. Guj. Cat. i., p. 206 (No. 60).

c7.s1.t1.20

¹³ Mysore Catalogue, No. 51.

c7.s1.t1.21

Māṇḍūkī çikṣā¹⁴)
15. Lomaçanyaçikṣā¹⁵) or Lomeçiç. (by Garga) Vālmīkiçikṣā¹⁶) Vaçishṭaçikṣā¹⁷) Vyāsaçikṣā¹⁸) Vyākhyāna by Svarāvadhānin¹⁹) Çambhuçikṣā²⁰)
20. Çikṣādcatushṭaya (?)²¹) Çikṣāsamuccaya²²) Sarvasammataçikṣā²³) — Commentary²⁴) Siddhāntaçikṣā by Çrinivāsin — Vyākhyāna²⁵)
24. Hāritaçikṣā²⁶)

c7.s1.t1.22

¹⁴ Haug, u. s. p. 55. Weber, “Pratijnāsūtra” pp. 106 ffg. “Notices” i., p. 73.

c7.s1.t1.23

¹⁵ “Report”, p. 18. Haug, u. s. p. 61. “Notices”, i., p. 71.

c7.s1.t1.24

¹⁶ Mentioned in the C. on the Siddhāntaç. and by Ahobala Bhaṭṭa in his C. on the Āndhra-çabdacintāmaṇi.

c7.s1.t1.25

¹⁷ Mentioned in the C. on the Siddhāntaç. Mysore Cat. No. 51.

c7.s1.t1.26

¹⁸ Mysore Cat. No. 52. Mentioned by Ahobala Bhaṭṭa.

c7.s1.t1.27

¹⁹ Mysore No. 52.

c7.s1.t1.28

²⁰ Mentioned in the C. on the Siddhāntaçikṣā.

c7.s1.t1.29

²¹ Gujarat Cat. i., p. 210 (No. 74). Probably Çikṣā, Jyotisha, Chandas and Nirukta.

c7.s1.t1.30

²² Mysore Cat. No. 57.

c7.s1.t1.31

²³ Do. do. do.

c7.s1.t1.32

²⁴ My Catalogue, p. 8. Mysore Cat. No. 51.

c7.s1.t1.33

²⁵ Do. p. 9. do. do.

c7.s1.t1.34

²⁶ Mentioned in the C. on the Siddhāntaçikṣā. See my “Catalogue”, p. 9.

c7.s1.t1.35

Of these the first, fifth, twenty-first and twenty-third are most probably modern compilations; several others (Gautamī, Nārada, Maṇḍūkī and Lomaçanya) refer to the Sāmaveda, and it is thus difficult to compare them with other grammatical works, for reasons I have already given; the age of the remaining ones is not yet positively determined, and before this can be attempted in a satisfactory manner, critical editions must be published¹. Dr. Haug² is inclined apparently to think that they represent an earlier stage than the Prātiçākhyas, and distinguishes the two classes of works very aptly. He says³: "Was nun den Inhalt der Çikṣās und Prātiçākhyas betrifft, so ist er nicht identisch, wenn sie auch Vieles gemeinsam haben, da der Zweck für welche beide Arten von Werken verfasst sind, ein Verschiedener ist. Die Çikṣās lehren nur die Aussprache und Recitation der wedischen Texte im Allgemeinen, und beziehen sich auf keine bestimmte Form derselben; die Prātiçākhyas dagegen setzen immer einen Pada-Text voraus, und lehren, wie aus demselben eine Samhitā zu construiren ist. . . . In den çikṣās dagegen sind alle Differenzen des Samhitā-Textes von dem des Pada ausgelassen; ebenso fehlen alle Andeutungen über den Krama. Das chronologische Verhältniss der çikṣās zu den Prātiçākhyas anlangend, so halte ich die ersteren für entschieden älter als die letztere. Die erstern waren vorhanden, ehe sich das Bedürfniss nach den letztern regte. Die Prātiçākhyas setzen bereits eingehende grammatische Studien voraus, während für die çikṣās ein geringeres Mass derselben verlangt wird. Zudem können die Prātiçākhyas nur zu einer Zeit entstanden sein, als man anfing, den Wedatext in die verschiedensten Formen zu bringen, um ihn desto unverfälschter überliefern zu können. Diess war ohne Zweifel ein langer Process, der solche Elementarkenntnisse in der Phonetik voraussetzt, wie wir sie in den çikṣās finden. Die Prātiçākhyas, die nach einem umfassenderen Plane, als die çikṣās angelegt waren, nahmen nicht nur (64) die Lehren dieser in sich auf, sondern führten sie auch weiter." It would be difficult to explain the existence of the çikṣās on other grounds than those here stated, and it is obvious that these Tracts, though perhaps owing their present forms to relatively late reductions, preserve much that is really primitive. Profr. Weber has lately pointed out one verse in the Pāṇinīyaçikṣā (R. 52), which is quoted by Patañjali⁴.

c7.s1.t1.36

¹ I believe that we may soon hope to see two or three edited by Profr. Kielhorn.

c7.s1.t1.37

² u. s. p. 53 ffg.

c7.s1.t1.38

³ Do. p. 63-4.

c7.s1.t1.39

⁴ "Indische Studien", xiii., p. 399.

c7.s1.t1.40

The term Pāṇinīya as applied to this ṣīxā would merely show that it was popular after Pāṇini’s time; for it is very common to find that in India substantially old works have modern claptrap names assigned to them¹⁾. But there is much in it actually copied from Pāṇini. Thus we find occasionaly pratyāhāras, *e.g.* ‘eṅ’, though the old system is also followed (ql. 29 etc.). Pāṇini is also mentioned by name as Dāxiputra. Other verses are probably primitive.

c7.s1.t1.41

¹ Thus Dr. Bühler has ascertained that the Viṣṇu Smṛti is really the Kāṭhaka Dharma (Z. d. D. M. G.) xxii., p. 327.

c7.s1.t1.42

To this class of works (but to a very limited extent) the Pushpa (or rather Phulla) sūtra belongs; it teaches how to form the gaṇas of the Sāmaveda, and so far as the discussion of the phonetic elements goes, it uses the old terms and not pratyāhāras.

b. Prātiçākhyas

c7.s1.t2.1

The next important class of phonetic treatises that can be connected with the Aindra School of grammar includes the Prātiçākhyas; all of these that have been discovered have been edited in an incomparable manner. They are as follows:

c7.s1.t2.2

1. Rigvedaprātiçākhya (attributed to Çaunaka), edited and translated (in German and French) by Profr. Max Müller and Mons. A. Regnier²⁾.

c7.s1.t2.3

² 1856-1859 and 1857-1869.

c7.s1.t2.4

On this there are two commentaries; the oldest is a vṛtti discovered by Profr. Eggeling in a Grantha MS., and described by him in the preface to Profr. Max Müller’s edition. The best known commentary is the ‘Pārshadavyākhyā’ by Ūvaṭa Bhaṭṭa, son of Vajraṭa, an inhabitant of Ānandapura (? Benares). This was first brought into notice by Profr. Roth³⁾, and exists in many MSS. Copious extracts from it are given by Mons. Regnier. The introduction (from Tanjore MS. No. 2417) is as follows:

c7.s1.t2.5

³ “Zur Literatur und Geschichte des Weda”, 1846. The introduction is also given there.

c7.s1.t2.6

Sūtrabhāshyakṛtaḥ sarvān praṇamya çirasā çuciḥ |
Çaunakam ca viçeṣeṇa-yene ’dam pārshadam kṛtam ||
Tathā vṛttikṛtaḥ sarvāms tān sūtrayaçasas tathā |
Teshām prasādād eteshām svaçaktyā vṛttim ārabhe ||
Lekhyadoshanivṛttyartham vistārārtham kvacit kvacit |
Jñānārtham paṭhanārtham ca yojyate sā mayā punaḥ ||
Tasyāḥ sāmāpane çaktim ta eva pradiçantu me |
Labdhvā kāmam aham tebhyaḥ prameyam pāram īpsitam ||
Campāyām nyavasat pūrvam Vatsānām kulam ṛddhimat |
Yasmin dvijavarā jātā bahvṛcāḥ pāragottamāḥ ||

c7.s1.t2.7

Devamitra iti khyātas tasmiń jāto mahāmatiḥ | Sa cai 'sha pārshadaçreṣṭhaḥ sutas tasya mahātmanaḥ || Nāmnā tu Viṣṇumitraḥ sa kumāra iti ćasyate | Tene 'yam yojitā vṛttiḥ saṃxiptā pārshade sphuṭā || Parigṛhṇantu viprendrāḥ suprasannā imāṃ mama | Ajñānād yad ayuktaṃ syāt tad ṛjūkṛtya gṛhyatām || Çāstrāvātāraṃ sambandhaṃ ṣaḍvidhaṃ parikīrtayan | Jñātvā grāhyaṃ bhavet ćāstrāvātāraṃ ucyate || Atha—Çaunako gṛhapatir vai naimiṣiyais tu saṃsthitaiḥ | Dīxāsu coditaḥ prāha sattre tu dvādaćāhike || iti Çāstrāvātāraṃ smaranti etc.

c7.s1.t2.8

2. Taittirīyaprātiçākhya of the Black Yajurveda.

c7.s1.t2.9

This, together with its commentary ("Tribhāṣyaratna"), has been edited and translated by Profr. Whitney¹). The author of the commentary is not known; he professes to follow Vararuci, Ātreya and Māhiṣeya who had composed commentaries on this treatise but which are now apparently lost²). It cannot be of any considerable antiquity as it refers to a ‘Kā-lanirṇaya’³) which is probably the work by Sāyaṇa (14th century).

c7.s1.t2.10

¹ 1871 (New Haven).

c7.s1.t2.11

² pp. 6-7 and 434-5.

c7.s1.t2.12

³ p. 435.

c7.s1.t2.13

3. Vājasaneyi or Kātyāyana-Prātiçākhya of the White Yajurveda.

c7.s1.t2.14

This has been edited with extracts from Ūvaṭa's C., and translated (into German) by Profr. Weber⁴).

c7.s1.t2.15

⁴ "Indische Studien", iv., pp. 65-160 and 177-331 (1858).

c7.s1.t2.16

Another Commentary ("Prātiçākhyajyotsnā") is quite recent viz., of the end of the last or beginning of this century; it is by one Rāma-candra son of Siddheçvara. A section of it has been published by Thibaut⁵).

c7.s1.t2.17

⁵ "Das Jaṭāpaṭala" (1870), pp. 36-53.

c7.s1.t2.18

4. Çaunakīya-Ćaturādhyāyikā, which Profr. Whitney has edited and translated into English⁶). He has demonstrated that it belongs to the Atharvaveda. There is an anonymous commentary which Profr. Whitney has used⁷).

c7.s1.t2.19

⁶ 1862 (New Haven).

c7.s1.t2.20

⁷ See Profr. Weber's "Verzeichniss" p. 87 (No. 361).

c7.s1.t2.21

A Prātiçākhya of the Sāmaveda is alluded to by Nāgoji Bhaṭṭa⁸), but it is not quite clear what he intends, and a work of this name has not, as yet, been discovered. It is also likely that some other works of the same nature may yet be in existence. Dr. Haug remarks¹): “Ich zweifle nicht, dass noch weitere Prātiçākhyas aufgefunden werden; so vermisse ich bis jetzt das zu der Maitrāyaṇī-Saṃhitā, die so vieles Eigentümliche hat, und gewiss ein besonderes Prātiçākhya besitzt”. Theoretically the number of these works should correspond with the number of the Vedic çākhās, but it may be reasonably doubted if this ever was the case.

c7.s1.t2.22

⁸ Goldstücker in the 'Academy', 9th July 1870 p. 275: "Sāmalaxaṇaṃ prātiçākhyam ćastram." Several existing books partly answer to this description, e.g. the Riktantra and Sāmatantra.

c7.s1.t2.23

The Çixās and Prātiçākhyas represent, so far, one side of the oldest form of the Aindra Grammar—the phonetic analysis of the language; the other side—etymology, is of equal interest, but unfortunately there is little left to represent the older system in this respect. The numerous passages in the Brāhmaṇas have already been mentioned²), but apart from these we have only one Nirukta (out of 14 that once existed) viz.,

c7.s1.t2.24

I. Yāska’s Nirukta, a treatise well-known by Profr. Roth’s edition³), and which, though it exists in two recensions⁴), is, no doubt, preserved nearly in its original condition. Yāska gives a general view of the etymological principles known in his time⁵), but the arrangement of the book is not grammatical, and to exhibit his system of analysis of words and grammatical forms would require too much space to be possible here; it generally agrees with the so-called Aindra treatises⁶). It must be remarked that there were two schools of etymologists—those headed by Çakaṭāyana who asserted that every noun was derived from a dhātu, and others headed by Gārgya who only gave a partial assent to this theory. Yāska’s treatise was not neglected by commentators of whom the earliest appears to have been

c7.s1.t2.25

The commentary (ṭīkā) by this writer is often quoted⁷), but is not as yet known to scholars, though it appears to be in existence⁸).

c7.s1.t2.26

1) *u. s.* p. 63.
2) pp. 26 ffg.
3) 8° Göttingen, 1852.
4) ed. Roth p. iv.
5) ed. Roth p. 31, translated by Profr. Max Müller, in his A. S. L. pp. 164 ffg.
6) See above, p. 12.
7) By Durgācārya and Sāyaṇa in his C. on the Ṛigveda.
8) Central Prov. Cat. p. 8, No. 39—“Niruktaṭīkā”, 36 *ll.* 1200 çlokas. (? Incomplete) Durgācārya also calls it Niruktaṭīkā.

c7.s1.t2.27

*b.* Durgācārya wrote a copious commentary—the Niruktavṛtti; this is well known and exists in several MSS. The author seems to have been a native of S. India, and probably lived in the 15th or 16th century A. D. His introduction is one of the most interesting parts of his book, as he there gives an account of his authorities and method; I have already printed it in the introduction to my edition of the Vamçabrāhmaṇa¹.

c7.s1.t2.28

¹ Preface pp. xxxi-xxxiii.

c7.s1.t2.29

No general treatise on grammar of a date previous to Pāṇini appears to be now extant in its original condition, though there must have been several such, and some at least appear to have been preserved down to Kaiyaṭa’s time. Thus he mentions Kuṇi as a predecessor of Pāṇini, but this name does not occur in the older books. Again the Saunāgas, Kuṇara Vaḍava and Vaḍava are also mentioned by the commentators as well as a work, the ‘Bhrāja-Çlokas’ by Kātyāyana, which was probably an Aindra treatise. Lastly, the Saṅgraha of Vyāḷi may also have belonged to the same school.

c7.s1.t2.30

There are some smaller tracts which, though since modified, apparently took their origin from the Aindra School. Such are II. 1. Ḉantanava’s “Phiṭsūtras.”
2. Jaṭāpaṭala, attributed in S. India to Vyāḍi.

c7.s1.t2.31

These (and, perhaps, some others) just retain sufficient of the old terms to show their origin, but it is evident that they have been repeatedly altered.

c7.s1.t2.32

*d.* Kātantra and systems of Grammar derived from it. The next work of this school in chronological position, and, therefore, in importance, is the Kātantra. Around this, besides commentaries, it will be convenient to group some other allied books.

c7.s1.t2.33

I. Kātantra or Kālāpa-Vyākaraṇa. This is now well-known by Profr. Eggeling’s excellent edition begun in the Bibl. Indica. The author’s name is commonly given as Sarvavarman².

c7.s1.t2.34

² The Tibetans, however, say Saptavarman. Colebrooke (“Essays” ii., p. 44) says: “The rules or aphorisms are ascribed to the God Kumāra. It is much used in Bengal.”

c7.s1.t2.35

Commentaries on it are: *a.* Kātantravṛtti by Durgasiṃha, edited by Profr. Eggeling in his edition of the text. On this there is more than one commentary. The author wrote a ‘ṭīkā’ on his own Vṛtti, and again a series of notes—‘Candrikā’. There are also notes on Durgasiṃha’s Vyākhyā (? vṛtti) by Caṅga Dāsa³.

c7.s1.t2.36

³ Oudh Cat. vi., p. 6.

c7.s1.t2.37

*aa.* Kātantravṛttipañjikā, by Trilocanadāsa¹). *aaa.* A gloss on the last, by Suseṇācārya²). *b.* Kātantralaghuvṛtti, by Bhāvasena. This is a Jain treatise which I found in 1872 in the province of S. Canara. It follows the C. of Durgasiṃha (which it quotes) very closely, and begins:

c7.s1.t2.38

¹ See Weber's “Verzeichniss” p. 220 (No. 777), Aufrecht's “Catalogus”, p. 169, “Notices”, ii., p. 336.

c7.s1.t2.39

² “Notices”, i., p. 296.

c7.s1.t2.40

Sarvajñam sarvavāgīcam bhuktimuktipradāyakam |
Natvā Kātantrasūtrāṇām laghuvṛttir vidhāsyate ||
Yathā bālaprabodhaḥ syāt tathai 've 'dam nirūpyate |
Xamadhvam sarvavidvāṃso laxanādinirūpaṇe. ||
“Siddho varṇasamāmnāyaḥ” || 1 || varṇānām samāmnāyaḥ pāṭhakramaḥ sakalalokaprasiddho veditavyaḥ etc.

c7.s1.t2.41

*c.* Kātantravṛtti by Ҫrīpati³). This same author also wrote a pariṣiṣṭa or supplement to the text⁴), which has been commented on more than once: *cc.* Pariṣiṣṭaprabodha, by Gopīnātha⁵). *ccc.* Pariṣiṣṭasiddhāntaratnākara, by Ҫivarāmacakravartin⁶). *d.* Kātantravistara, by Vardhamāna⁷). *e.* Kalāpatattvārṇava, by Raghunandana⁸). *f.* ‘Caitrukuṭī, a C., by a Vararuci⁹). *g.* Vyākhyāsāra, by Harirāma Cakravartin¹⁰). *h.* Do. by Rāmadāsa¹¹). Colebrooke¹²) mentions also commentaries by: *j.* Rāmanātha, [Kātantravṛttiprabodha (in “Notices” iii., p. 83) and said to be a gloss on Rāma’s C.] *k.* Umāpati *l.* Kulacandra *m.* Murāri *n.* Durgagupta of which the notes do not give the names.

c7.s1.t2.42

³ “Notices”, i., p. 195.

c7.s1.t2.43

⁴ Do. p. 297.

c7.s1.t2.44

⁵ Colebrooke's “Essays”, ii., p. 45.

c7.s1.t2.45

⁶ Do.

c7.s1.t2.46

⁷ Do.

c7.s1.t2.47

⁸ Do.

c7.s1.t2.48

⁹ Do.

c7.s1.t2.49

¹⁰ Do.

c7.s1.t2.50

¹¹ Colebrooke, u. s.

c7.s1.t2.51

¹² Do.

c7.s1.t2.52

There are several treatises subsidiary to this Grammar which are also mentioned by him¹):

c7.s1.t2.53

¹ Colebrooke, *u. s.*

c7.s1.t2.54

*a.* Kātantragaṇadhātu, commented on by Rāmanātha in his Manoramā. *b.* Kātantradhātughosha. *c.* Kātantrashaṭkāraka, by Rahasanandin. *d.* Uṇādivṛtti, by Çivadāsa. *e.* Kātantracatushṭayapradīpa. *f.* Kātantraçabdamālā. *g.* Uṇādikosha, by Rāmaçarman²). *h.* Kārakakaumudī.

c7.s1.t2.55

² Aufrecht (“Uṇādisūtra”, p. xxi.) puts this untrustworthy compilation at the end of the 17th or beginning of the 18th century.

c7.s1.t2.56

It is impossible for me to do more than call attention here to the very extensive but late literature to which the Kātantra has given birth directly; I can also only briefly indicate systems of grammar which appear to be connected with it rather than with Pāṇini's work. These are:

c7.s1.t2.57

II. 1. Vopadeva's Mugdhabodha. The new school founded by Vopadeva has found much favor in Bengal. It may be safely asserted that the author largely followed the Kātantra³), and some of his technical terms are abbreviations of those used in that treatise, *e.g.* ‘li’ from ‘liṅga’. Colebrooke thought that Vopadeva got the plan of his grammar from the Kaumudīs⁴), but (as we now know) he lived far too early for it to be possible⁵) for him to have done so. This grammar is known by several editions, and part at least has been translated. It has given rise to a large literature.

c7.s1.t2.58

³ Westergaard “Radices”, p. iv., and see above p. 37.

c7.s1.t2.59

⁴ “Essays” ii., 15: “It .... proceeds upon a plan grounded on that of the Kaumudīs.”

c7.s1.t2.60

⁵ The C. on the Prakriyākaumudī, which is by the nephew of the author, quotes the Mugdhabodha. Aufrecht, “Catalogus” p. 161 *b*.

c7.s1.t2.61

2. Sārasvata-vyākaraṇa⁶). The date of this treatise is uncertain, but it is an improvement on Vopadeva's grammar, though it mostly uses Pāṇini's technical terms. In arrangement, however, and some of the terms, it follows the Aindra grammars. Aufrecht says of it: “Sarasvatisūtrarum auctor quum grammaticam tironum in usum componere vellet, in rerum dispositione a Pāṇini differt, eamque fere viam ingressus est, quam Rāmacandra, Vopadeva, alii secuti sunt. Terminis technicis utitur quidem, rarius tamen quam aut schola Pāṇinīya aut Vopadeva. Literae auxiliares, ubi adhibentur, pleraeque a Pāṇini mutuum sumtae, accentum indicantes omissa sunt. Litera eodem atque a Vopadeva ordine disposita sunt . . . . Casuum et verbi terminationes ut apud Vopadevam significantur. Saepissime tamen varia suffixa sine literis auxiliaribus traduntur¹).”

c7.s1.t2.62

⁶ Printed with Commentary at Bombay, ç. 1783, etc.

c7.s1.t2.63

¹ Aufrecht, “Catalogus” p. 172 a.

c7.s1.t2.64

There are commentaries by a. Anubhūtisvarūpācārya. b. Puñjarāja²). c. Rāmacandrācrama; called Siddhāntacandrikā.

c7.s1.t2.65

² E. I. H. 859 written in 1617 (Aufrecht, “Catalogus”, p. 172 b).

c7.s1.t2.66

The relation of the Mugdhabodha and Sārasvatavyākaraṇa to the older grammars is singular; they both have preserved the form and many of the terms of the Aindra system, but have added to it more or less of imitations of Pāṇini’s algebraic system, including a modified arrangement of the Çivasūtras which Vopadeva probably invented, and in which he has carried much further the re-arrangement of the Çivasūtras as begun by Jinendra and the later Çakaṭāyana³); these last, on the other hand, have utterly given up the old form or system, and have scarcely preserved a trace of the old terms. In technicality they out-do Pāṇini.

c7.s1.t2.67

³ See the discussion on these treatises in the Appendix.

c7.s1.t2.68

There is yet another grammar which may in some respects be affiliated to the Aindra School, but which appears to have entirely escaped the notice of scholars. It is contained in a few chapters near the end of the Agnipurāṇa which is an immense collection of small treatises on all possible subjects, including law, prosody, war, etc. The only MS⁴). accessible to me is so corrupt that I can hardly give even a brief notice of it. It is related by Skanda who appears to attribute it to Kātyāyana⁵). The first chapter contains Pāṇini’s Çivasūtras, the others treat of Sandhi, inflection, etc. but in a simple and natural order, and use many of the old (or Aindra) terms. Uncertain as my only MS. is, it would be impossible to say more, with safety, of this interesting fragment. The whole Purāṇa will, shortly, be accessible¹); it is one of the most peculiar and interesting of its class, and gives much information that cannot be found except, perhaps, in some of the astrological treatises.

c7.s1.t2.69

⁴ Tanjore, 1565.

c7.s1.t2.70

⁵ The first verse is: Vaxye vyākaraṇasāram siddhaçabdasvarūpakam | Kātyāyano (MS.°na) vibodhāya bālānām (yad?) adhāraya(t) ||

c7.s1.t2.71

¹ An edition is already begun in the Bibl. Indica.

c7.s1.t2.72

e. Foreign grammars modelled on the Sanskrit Aindra treatises A. Tamil. author of the
1. Tolkâppiyam, who is known as Tolkāppiyan, but (except a few doubtful quotations) only this last exists at present³). On this there are several commentaries by— a. Iḷambūraṇar, called Iḷambūraṇam. On the first two divisions only. By b. Naššiṇārkkiniyar, called Naššiṇārkkiniyam. This is a commentary on the entire treatise, but only part has, as yet, been printed. By c. Šenāvaraiyar, called Šenāvaraiyam. This is said to be on the second book only. I may notice also d. The Tolkāppiyaššūttiravirutti (on i., 1, 1 only) by Šivañāṇađešiyar.

c7.s1.t2.73

³ I have, above, discussed the terms used in it etc.

c7.s1.t2.74

The most important application of the Aindra system of grammar to a foreign language, is undoubtedly to Tamil. Mention is made of a number of early works—by Ayattiyan (Agastya), who is said to have been the first Tamil grammarian, and his pupils²)—including the

c7.s1.t2.75

² See the long list of names in Babington’s translation of Beschi’s “Šen-Tamil Grammar”, introduction. The beginning of Tamil grammar must be about the 8th cent. A. D.

c7.s1.t2.76

But Tolkāppiyan’s treatise has long been superseded by the popular
2. Nannūl. Little is known about the origin of this work; the introduction proves the author to have been a Jain, and he dedicates it to somebody named Šiyaṅaṅyan who is said to have been a petty chieftain near Madura, and who, therefore, probably lived after the fall of the old Pāṇḍiya kingdom in the 14th century. Had there been a Pāṇḍiyan, the author would have certainly dedicated it to him. He also mentions his own name—Pavaṇaṅđi—and says that he was the son of Sanmađimuni, and that he lived in a town called Šanayai which has not been traced. It is very unlikely that this treatise is more than five hundred years old, but it is the Tamil grammar. It is more technical than Tolkāppiyan’s work, and has far more Sanskrit in it. It has exercised the ingenuity of a number of commentators down to the present time; but these authors evidently did not know the real source of Tamil grammar, and have often misunderstood the system and terms; their works are, for the most part, insufferably prolix, and contain but little of value. The most important are:

c7.s1.t2.77

a. Śamaṇamunivar; his commentary is only known by quotations.

c7.s1.t2.78

b. Śaṅyaranamaśśivāyar; he was a native of Tinnevelly, but became a Çaiva Sannyāsi at the maṭha of Tiruvāvaḍudurai (between Mayaveram and Combaconum) a great seat of Tamil learning. Extracts have been given by Mr. Joyes in his excellent edition and translation of part of the Nannūl.

c7.s1.t2.79

c. Śivañānaśeśiyar; of Conjeveram, but a member of the same society.

c7.s1.t2.80

d. Vaittiyanāśar; a member of the Tarumapura maṭha. He himself wrote a Tamil grammar (Ilakkaṇaviḷakkam) in which he improved on his predecessors¹.

c7.s1.t2.81

¹ It has been printed. For this and the numerous editions of the Nannūl and similar works, see Murdoch's Catalogue of printed Tamil books.

c7.s1.t2.82

The later history of Tamil grammar is not of importance here. The science has been chiefly kept up by Tamil people of the so-called Çūdra castes, and they have always (being themselves ignorant of Sanskrit) delighted in asserting the independence of the Tamil grammar and literary culture in opposition to the Brahmans who asserted the contrary, often in too positive a manner. Most of the later works on the Tamil grammar are difficult to find, as but few have been printed, and nearly all have only local reputations. I shall not attempt here to say more about them.

c7.s1.t2.83

It is perhaps worth while to point out that the ultimate source of the earliest Tamil grammar must be a Sanskrit, and not a Pali original. As far as the Sanskrit words go, it is impossible to prove this, for in Tamil they assume much the same if not the identical form that they have in Pali. But I have shown elsewhere² that in the 7th century A. D. the predominant sect in S. India was that of the Nirgranthas or Digambara Jains, and Tolkāppiyan was most probably of this sect. He is sometimes said to have been a Buddhist, and the Jains were in fact, heretical Buddhists. Now the S. Indian Jains have a peculiar literature that is either in Sanskrit or in Vernacular languages (Tamil and Canarese). They have never used Pali, and the few Prakrit books they have, are late importations from N. India. The Tamil grammar shows no certain trace of Prakrit influences; thus only a Sanskrit origin for it can be allowed.

c7.s1.t2.84

² "Indian Antiquary" i., p. 310 note. "Elements of S. Indian Palæography" p. 89 note.

c7.s1.t2.85

The few names that are mentioned are also Sanskrit rather than Pali—Ayattiyan (Agastya), Āttireyan (Ātreya), etc.

c7.s1.t2.86

Payu-paḍam and Payā-paḍam (=iṅgya and aniṅgya) also show that the original followed by Tolkāppiyan was Sanskrit; such terms do not occur in Pali Grammar¹.

c7.s1.t2.87

¹ See above, p. 13.

c7.s1.t2.88

This doubtful origin is only possible as far as the older grammar is concerned; that the author of the Nannūl had Sanskrit treatises, and especially the Kātantra, before him, every page proves conclusively. It is unnecessary to call attention to more than his rules for converting Sanskrit words into Tamil².

c7.s1.t2.89

² Pt. iii., sūtras xix-xxiii. There was much intercourse between the Singhalese and S. Indian Buddhists in the 12th century A. D., and especially under king Parākrama i., and at this time the Singhalese appear to have become acquainted with the Kātantra and Sanskrit sources. (D'Alwis "Descriptive Catalogue", i., pp. 179-180. "Mahavanso", ch. 77 etc.)

c7.s1.t2.90

B. Canarese Grammar.

c7.s1.t2.91

It is possible to speak of the Canarese Grammar with considerable certainty, as Mr. Kittel has published a critical edition of the most important which is also, probably, the oldest existing treatise:

c7.s1.t2.92

1. Ṣabdananidarpaṇa, by Keçirāja or Keçava. The author was probably a Jain³, and lived about the end of the twelfth century⁴. It is remarkable that this treatise is nearly all in metre, though aphoristic in style, and the author himself speaks of his ‘sūtras’; it is in eight chapters. The first treats of phonetics. For letters he uses as names ‘axara’ and ‘varṇa’; ‘svara’ for vowels; ‘sandhyaxara’ for diphthongs. Except a and ā, vowels are ‘nāmin’. Consonants he terms ‘vyañjana’. A theme (prakṛiti) is either nominal—‘liṅga’, or verbal—‘dhātu’; by the addition of ‘vibhakti’ (both nominal and verbal) or by a ‘pratyaya’ it becomes a pada. The second chapter is on nouns. The seven cases of declension of a noun (nāman) are ‘prathama’, ‘dvitīya’, etc. The eighth, or vocative, is called ‘āmantraṇa’ or ‘sambuddhi’. Chapter 3 is on compounds—‘samāsa’; and chapter 4 is on derivative nouns—‘taddhita’. Chapter 5 is on verbs—‘ākhyāta’; tenses (‘kāla’) have persons—‘puruṣa’, and are ‘vartamāna’ or present, ‘bhāvi’ or future, ‘bhūta’ or past, and ‘vidhi’ or imperative. Chapter 6 is on roots; chapter 7 on corrupt Sanskrit words (tadbhava); and the last chapter is on particles—‘avyaya’. Thus throughout, the arrangement and technical terms closely follow the Aindra system. The form of the numerous Sanskrit words indicates an original in that language.

c7.s1.t2.93

³ See Mr. Kittel's Introduction, p. xxi.

c7.s1.t2.94

⁴ Do. p. xxvi.

c7.s1.t2.95

The author himself wrote an explanation of his work:

c7.s1.t2.96

*a.* Arthavṛtti¹. Keçirāja was not the first Canarese grammarian²; but nothing precise is known of his predecessors. The chief commentary on his treatise is relatively modern³; it has also been edited by Mr. Kittel, it is called

c7.s1.t2.97

*b.* Vyākhyāna; and is by Niṣṭhūra Sañjayya, who must have lived in comparatively recent times.

c7.s1.t2.98

There is a treatise on Canarese Grammar written in Sanskrit sūtras:

c7.s1.t2.99

2. Ṣabdānuçāsana (in four pādas), by an anonymous author. On it there is also a vṛtti in Sanskrit:

c7.s1.t2.100

*a.* Bhāṣāmañjarī, by Bhaṭṭākalaṅka. As Mr. Kittel has shown⁴, this little work is anterior to Niṣṭhūra Sañjayya (who quotes it), but probably later than Keçava. As far as I have seen quotations from it, it belongs also to the Aindra School, but I cannot say for certain. Mr. Kittel considers that it is based on an abridged recension of the Ṣabdamaṇidarpaṇa, though it differs in some details⁵. The name of the commentator—Bhaṭṭākalaṅka—is clearly Jain; from the style of his work (as in the quotation given by Mr. Kittel) I should infer that he is the author of the text. Vṛttis by the authors of later sūtra works and explaining their own rules, are far from uncommon in Sanskrit literature.

c7.s1.t2.101

The great and real merit of the Ṣabdamaṇidarpaṇa is that it bases the rules on independent research and the usage of writers of repute⁶; in this way it is far ahead of the Tamil and Telugu treatises which are much occupied with vain scholastic disputations.

c7.s1.t2.102

C. Tibetan Grammar. Even out of India the Aindra Grammar shows itself as an agent of literary culture. The Tibetans have transferred to their larger collection—the Bstan-hygur—a considerable part of the Sanskrit grammatical literature which they have translated in their usual mechanical way⁷. Among these are the following Sanskrit Aindra treatises:

c7.s1.t2.103

1) See Mr. Kittel's Introduction. P. 5 (sūtra 6).
2) Do. p. xvi.
3) Do. p. xiv.
4) Do. do.
5) Do. p. xv.
6) Do. pp. xvi. ffg.
7) This has been already exemplified by Schiefner ("Bulletin Historico-Philologique de l'Académie de St. Pétersburg" iv., p. 296 note etc.) I have pointed out another in Tāranātha, viz., Kumārila (a diminutive regularly formed from Kumāra) translated as if it were Kumāralīlā. ("Indian Antiquary" i., p. 310 n.) But such defects do not seriously affect the great value of the Tibetan translations in respect of Indian research.

c7.s1.t2.104

3.612. Kalāpasūtra. (Tib.) Kalāpa 'i mdo. f. 86, called by C. Sgra'i bstan-bčos Kalāpa. i. e. Çabdaçāstra or Vyākaraṇaçāstra.

c7.s1.t2.105

3.613. Kalāpasūtravṛtti. (Tib.) čha-bsags-kyi mdo 'i grel-pa shes-bya-va, by Durgasiṃha. (Schiefner here remarks that the Tibetan translates Kalāpa as if from kalā + √āp.)

c7.s1.t2.106

3.614. Kalāpalaghuvṛtti çiṣyahitānāma. (Tib.) Kalāpa 'i hgrel-pa ñuṅ-du-la slob-ma-la phan-pa shes-bya-va, by Paṇḍita Sgrol-va 'i dvaṅ-phyug, which Schiefner considers may be translated by Mukteçvara or Muktasvāmin.

c7.s1.t2.107

3.723. Kalāpadhātusūtra. (Tib.) Kalāpa 'i byings-kyi mdo¹).

c7.s1.t2.108

¹ I have taken the above descriptions from Schiefner's article mentioned already. Csoma de Kőrös (As. Res. xx. pp. 581 ffg.) first gave an imperfect account of these translations.

c7.s1.t2.109

In No. 3.746 we find the Sārasvatavyākaraṇa, though the Mugdhabodha is, apparently, not included in the collection. The dates of these several Tibetan translations cannot be settled at present with any certainty. They began in the 7th century A. D., but continued for several hundred years.

c7.s1.t2.110

The Tibetan Grammar is said to have been begun in the 7th century by Paṇḍita Sambodha, whose treatises (also in the ‘Bstan-hgyur’) are called ‘Sum-ču-pa’ i. e. “the thirty (letters)”, and ‘Rtags-kyi hjug-pa’ i. e. “the application of flexions”. An immense number of treatises on Tibetan Grammar seem to be in existence, but only a few extracts have, as yet, been published by Schiefner in his “Tibetische Studien²)”. The names of many are to be found in Schmidt’s Catalogue of the Tibetan books and MSS. at St. Petersburg; not one even is accessible to me, but if it is permitted to hazard an opinion on mere extracts, it is pretty plain that they follow the Aindra system.

c7.s1.t2.111

² “Mélanges Asiatiques” (St. Petersburg) vols. i., pp. 324-394; iii., pp. 12-16.

c7.s1.t2.112

That the Tibetans got their literary culture from Sanskrit needs no proof; a glance at the indexes to the Bkah-hgyur and Bstan-hgyur will show that they only translated the Sanskrit or northern canonical works of the Buddhists, and all the philological treatises (in the last) refer to Sanskrit only.

c7.s1.t2.113

Dr. Jaeschke has finished his great Tibetan Dictionary; may I, as an old friend and pupil ask him to give us now some specimens of the Tibetan grammatical treatises? He alone can do it.

c7.s1.t2.114

Though, very unnecessarily, the Tibetans have (like the Tamil grammarians) forced their system of suffixes to nouns into agreement with the Sanskrit eight cases of declension, and have in other points closely adhered to their model system, yet their treatises appears to contain much that is the fruit of original observation, especially with regard to the numerous consonants that are now written but not pronounced, and also with regard to dialectic peculiarities¹).

c7.s1.t2.115

¹ See Jaeschke’s “Ueber die Phonetik der Tibetischen Sprache” in “Monats. der Königl. Academie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin” (1864) pp. 176 ffg.

c7.s1.t2.116

Except the Chinese, the Tibetans are the only people of that race who have noticed such facts; their works are then of first importance for a study of the Indo-Chinese family of languages.

II. Pali

c7.s2.1

It has long been known that the Pali grammatical literature is very extensive. Hardy in 1848 (in the Ceylon As. Journal) gave a list of 26 such works. Some of these were first described in Westergaard’s Catalogue of the MSS. at Copenhagen, and in 1863, Mr. D’Alwis (in his “Introduction to Kaccāyana’s Grammar”) gave an admittedly imperfect list of 45 books; but several of these merely treat of particular topics, and are not regular grammars. I can only mention a few to which I am able to refer. The oldest and model grammar is that by

c7.s2.2

1. Kaccāyana. To this reference has been repeatedly made in the preceding pages. Parts of it have been edited by Mr. D’Alwis²) and Dr. Kuhn³); an imperfect edition was brought out by the late F. Mason⁴), and an admirable one (with translation) by M. Senart⁵). This last includes the

c7.s2.3

² “Introduction to Kaccāyana” 8°. Colombo, 1863.

c7.s2.4

³ “Kaccāyanappakaranae Specimen” 8°. 1869. “Kaccāyanappakaranae Specimen Alterum”, 8°. 1871.

c7.s2.5

⁴ In the Burmese character, 2 parts 8°. Toungho, 1870.

c7.s2.6

⁵ Originally in the “Journal Asiatique”, and then published separately in 1871.

c7.s2.7

a. Vutti; which may be put down as the first of the many commentaries on the sūtras. It is not quite certain whether Kaccāyana wrote these explanations or not. The tradition of the Pali grammarians is given as follows:

c7.s2.8

“Kaccāyanakato yogo,
Vutti ca Sanghanandino,
Payogo Brahmadattena,
Nyāso Vimalabuddhinā”⁶).

c7.s2.9

⁶ Quoted by Mr. D’Alwis (from the Kaccāyanabhedaṭīkā) in his “Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit, Pali and Sinhalese Literary Works”. Colombo, 1870. i., p. 52. Also, previously, in his “Introduction”.

c7.s2.10

“The text was made by Kaccāyana, the interpretation is of Saṅghanandi; the examples by Brahmadatta, and the nyāsa by Vimalabuddhi.” Who the author Kaccāyana was, is as yet quite undetermined; Profr. Weber has discussed¹ the little matter that there is to decide on, and considers that he is not the same as Sāriputta, an opinion in which Mr. D’Alwis now agrees. It is perhaps impossible to solve the question satisfactorily.

c7.s2.11

¹ Z. d. d. M. G. xix., pp. 649-666; reprinted in “Indische Streifen” ii., pp. 316-343. This has been translated into English.

c7.s2.12

Mr. D’Alwis considers that Pāṇini’s Grammar was the source of Kaccāyana’s², but for the reasons I have already given in the former part of this monograph, I cannot accept this view. That some details may be borrowed from Pāṇini by a subsequent redactor of the work, is possible³, but the six sūtras which are identical in both grammars appear to me to be rather from an older source than either Pāṇini or Kaccāyana; they contain nothing that is peculiar to Pāṇini, and generally agree with what has been shown to be the peculiar feature of the Aindra system. There is nothing in the sūtras to throw doubt on their antiquity, except an anubandha or so, which must have been taken from Pāṇini. Thirty-eight sūtras are, however, admittedly interpolations as the earliest commentaries allow⁴ and (as the Ceylon scholiasts admit) there are several sūtras almost identical with those of the Kātantra⁵. To me, at least, it appears probable that both Kaccāyana and the author of the Kātantra have mostly taken these last from a primitive source⁶; but further enquiry (for which I have no space here) is needed to decide the question.

c7.s2.13

² “Introduction”, p. xi. ffg.

c7.s2.14

³ e. g. the use of ṇ to indicate vṛiddhi. As Pāṇini’s anubandhas were new (see above p. 40), this must have been copied.

c7.s2.15

⁴ D’Alwis “Catalogue”, i., pp. 52-3.

c7.s2.16

⁵ Kuhn, “Specimen”, pp. 17-19.

c7.s2.17

⁶ Except ‘vā napacce’: this is Pāṇinīyan so far as the ṇ is concerned.

c7.s2.18

Another objection to the antiquity of Kaccāyana’s Grammar has been raised by Mr. D’Alwis⁷ which I must here notice. It is that Buddhaghosa (4th century) does not use (in his commentary on the three Piṭakas) Kaccāyana’s technical terms, but different ones. It is obvious that no inference can be drawn from this fact, as I have already shown that many of Kaccāyana’s terms occur in Pāṇini’s sūtras; still more occur in Patañjali, and there can, therefore, be no doubt that they belong to a system far older than the 4th century A. D. This is peculiarly the case with the only terms that Mr. D'Alwis mentions as used by Buddhaghosa, viz., the names of cases. Prathamā etc. were all known to Pāṇini, now for these Buddhaghosa uses paccatta, upayoga, etc.; but it is obvious, I think, that these terms are not really names of cases, and that they are solely intended to express the syntactic relation intended by the cases. Thus for the third case he has ‘karaṇa’, and for the fourth ‘sampadāna’ which are used in this way in the grammars¹.

c7.s2.19

⁷ “Catalogue” p. 68 ffg. It is obvious (see the article by Profr. Childers and L. C. Vijasimha in R. As. S. J. new series, V. pp. 289-302) that Buddhaghosa’s Aṭṭhakathā was a compilation from, not a translation, of older works.

c7.s2.20

¹ Kacc. iii.; 6 (sampadāna) etc. See also Profr. Childers' Dy.

c7.s2.21

I have made these remarks here, because (owing to deficient materials) I cannot attempt, even in a summary way, to criticize the present condition of a Pali text², as I propose to do (in Appendix A.) with some of the Sanskrit Grammars.

c7.s2.22

² M. Senart (p. 7) promises to treat of Kaccāyana's relation to the Sanskrit originals, and the later development of the Pali grammatical literature. Kaccāyana's Grammar is almos t certainly not the original Pali Grammar; at least, in its present form.

c7.s2.23

M. Senart promises a complete edition of the Pali grammarians, and I need, therefore, only mention briefly a few of them, which will show that the Pali type of the Aindra Grammar is as important as the Sanskrit.

c7.s2.24

Besides the commentaries (Vutti and Nyāsa) mentioned above, Mr. D'Alwis mentions: a. Dīpanī, apparently not as yet found. b. Kaccāyanabhedaṭīkā³.

c7.s2.25

³ u. s. p. 52.

c7.s2.26

Kaccāyana's Grammar has also given rise to a number of treatises:
1. Mahāsadda-(i. e. çabda)nīti; the author of this knew the Kātantra.
2. Rūpasiddhi. The author of this professes to have consulted Kaccāyana. He lived while Buddhism still existed on the continent of India⁴.
3. Bālavatāra; edited by Mr. Lee. This is according to Mr. D'Alwis an old treatise, though of uncertain date. It is very brief, and there are several commentaries on it: a. Pañcikāpadīpa, written in 1455 A. D. There was, however, an older commentary in Singhalese: b. Gaḍalādeni Saṇṇā⁵. The Balāvatāra was the source whence the earlier European scholars got their notions of Pali Grammar.
4. Payogasiddhi; of the 14th century A. D. This is an exceedingly full and valuable grammar.

c7.s2.27

⁴ Do. pp. 179-180.

c7.s2.28

⁵ Do. p. 80.

c7.s2.29

5. Ākhyātapada. This is a very valuable treatise on verbs, with full explanation of the inflections. It is, thus, not unlike the Sanskrit Mādhaviyadhātuvṛtti of Sāyaṇa.

c7.s2.30

6. Dhātumañjūsā; by Sīlavamsa, of unknown date. The author refers to previous Dhātupāṭhas. The order of the classes differs from the Sanskrit, and may perhaps be that followed by Pāṇini’s predecessors¹.

c7.s2.31

¹ I have transcripts of the whole or part of these three treatises, which I made many years ago from my honoured friend and teacher Dr. Fausböll’s copies.

c7.s2.32

Kaccāyana’s Grammar has also given rise to a modified system—Moggallāna’s Vyākaraṇa. The author who lived from 1153-1186 A. D. was an inhabitant of Anurādhapura in Ceylon. Mr. D’Alwis has described this treatise² at some length.

c7.s2.33

² u. s. pp. 188 ffg.

c7.s2.34

Grammars based on the Pali A. Singhalese Grammar. Drawn up on the plan of the Pali Grammar is that of the Singhalese language, for a knowledge of which we have to thank Mr. D’Alwis who has edited the most important and oldest treatise:

c7.s2.35

Sidat-Saṅgarāva. Colombo, 1853. In a long introduction Mr. D’Alwis has given a valuable history of Singhalese literature. He puts the date of the text between 1266 and 1410 A. D.

c7.s2.36

B. Burmese Grammar. Mgr. Bigandet appears to state³ that the Burmese Grammar is based on the Pali⁴: I have no information accessible beyond this statement, but it comes from a most competent authority. Probably the Siamese Grammar is based on the same source, and the few Javanese and Cambodian grammatical terms that I can find are from the Aindra system.

c7.s2.37

³ Advertisement to Mason’s edition of Kaccāyana—“I look upon it too, as a necessary complement of the Burmese Grammar. No one indeed can master thoroughly the Burmese language unless he possesses a fair knowledge of the Pali.”

c7.s2.38

⁴ Mason (‘Pali Grammar’, in English, p. v.) says: “The book (Kaccāyana’s Grammar) is said to have been brought to Burma, A. D. 387, by Buddhaghosa, and the Burmese translation and commentary are ascribed to him.”

c7.s2.39

The above brief list of the most important treatises, in seven different languages, which are based more or less completely on the Aindra system, will show that if the fortunes of the oldest system of Sanskrit Grammar have been rather Buddhistic (or heretical) than Brahmanical (or orthodox), yet Pāṇini’s great reform did not completely supersede the older system. This is partly to be explained by the circumstances of the time when Pāṇini appeared as an author. At that time the aim of all literary culture seems to have been victory in formal scholastic disputations, and the object of teachers seems to have been to ensure victory to their pupils by almost mechanical means; hence the sūtra style which put in order the mere heads of the successive arguments in the most concise way, and by thus rendering these notes unintelligible except to the initiated, secrecy powerfully aided their object. The peculiar relations existing in ancient India between a teacher and his pupils would effectually prevent treachery, and so a system like Pāṇini’s would long remain a secret in the possession of comparatively few persons. It is thus possible to explain how it happened that it was only after some eight hundred or a thousand years that the older treatises begin to borrow from the Pāṇinīya system¹); had it been possible, this would have occurred long before, for the Çiva-sūtras and algebraic terms of Pāṇini are too attractive to the Indian mind to be neglected, and they offer many advantages in practice.

c7.s2.40

¹ Çakaṭāyana, Vopadeva, etc. It is remarkable that an Aindra treatise (thus Pāṇiniyised) should have appeared at first the best source to Sir W. Jones and others. ("As. Res." i., p. 354.) Forster's Grammar (1810) is based on the Mugdhabodha, and probably Carey's also; the remains of a philosophical arrangement in it attracted attention rather than Pāṇini's technicalities. The earliest grammar by a European (that of P. Paulinus à St. Bartholemeo) is based on a similar source which (in a MS. note in his presentation copy to Anquetil which is now in my possession) he states he got from two Brahmans at Āṅgamala. May not Jinendra, the commentator on the Kāçikā (to Pāṇini's sūtras) and who was a Buddhist, have been the chief means of communicating Pāṇini's system to others than Brahmans?

c7.s2.41

In the history of the civilization that has spread in the course of about two thousand five hundred years from the extreme N. W. of India over the whole peninsula, and even to Indo-China and the Malay archipelago, the Aindra system of grammar fills precisely the same place that Priscian’s grammar has in the history of Latin civilization. Just as the early Catholic Missionaries in the sixteenth century, who went to Mexico, S. America and Africa, and wrote so many meritorious grammars and vocabularies of the strange languages they there discovered, but in every instance and whatever might be the character of the language, found in it the tenses and cases and parts of speech of Priscian, which, as they imagined, constituted for them a science of Universal Grammar, so the Buddhists—orthodox and heretical—who were the first Indian Missionaries, found in languages of the most opposite character, *e. g.* Tibetan and Tamil, the eight cases (resp. seven and vocative) of the Sanskrit and a fourfold division of words. Both the European and Indian Missionaries applied this system mechanically; the only grammar they both knew was to them a science, and became an imaginary universal grammar. In its beginning, Sanskrit Grammar was derived from an analysis of the facts of the language as was the Latin Grammar, but this false notion of a science of general grammar prevented, both in India and Europe, the analysis of strange languages; this true method has only been introduced in this century chiefly owing to a knowledge of Pāṇini’s system. But (if my conclusions are just), the Aindra or older Indian Grammar has had too important a place in eastern literary history to allow of its being neglected with safety in the actual progress of research. For the Aindra (or primitive Sanskrit) Grammar founded the analysis of language; Pāṇini’s systematized the results, and since then there was no real progress till German scholars took up this (to Europe) new line of research. If in any line of research, India is, here, original.

Cites (49)