The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c8.29.4

c8.29.4

Târânâtha in his Vâchaspatya obtains the long vowel by Pânini v. 2. 102, Vârtika 1; but Jyotsnâdi is not again expressly said to be a ‘specimen list.’ Bhânu Dikshita, the son of Bhattoji, in his commentary on Amara adopts his father's view and refutes that of Mukuṭa. The latter obtains the initial long vowel from the very fact that the word itself is so pronounced by Pânini in iv. 2. 22; but this gives us Âgrahâyanî as a ready made word at once, and Mukuṭa had to assign some reason why the word should have been again included in the Gaurâdi list in Pan. iv. 1. 41. Mukuṭa's explanation is that Pâṇini thereby intends to show that the feminine termination in Âgrahâyaṇî is not dropped in compounds. But Bhânu Dikṣhita replies by observing that the Gaurâdi list was never intended for the purpose and that as regards the accent we can get it otherwise. Bhânu Dikṣhita's own explanation or that of his father Bhaṭṭoji also dispenses with the necessity of including the word in the Gaurâdi list as they obtain the feminine suffix î by Pan. iv. 1. 15; and so in replying to Mukuṭa he observes at the end that the "inclusion of the word in the Gaurâdi list is questionable." Thus if we suppose Amarsinha to be correct and accept either Bhaṭṭoji's or Mukuṭa's derivation of Âgrahâyaṇî we shall have to hold that the word in question was either wrongly included or subsequently inserted in the Gaurâdi list and that Pâṇini, who knew the word, forgot to insert it in the Prajnâdi or the Jyotsnâdi list.