S.V.U.

O Journal,

P ol.

VIII -Texts and Studies No. 2

APA3STINIYA -

PRAMANYA - SADHANAM
By

NARAYANA BHATTAPADA
Edited with Introduction, English Translation and Notes

By
Sreekrishna Sarnia

SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY ORIENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE TI RU PA T

I

1968

CONTENTS

Pages

Foreword
Introduction

...

iii

...

vii

Translation with notes

,,,

13-33

FOREWORD

The present work ApaniniyaprtimaityQ-sllihanani

under
Journal
'Texts
is

issued as

No, 2

and Studies' an appendi-ge

critical

to

S.V. University Oriental

edition of a krodapatfa written by a versatile

scholar Melpputtur

Narayana Bhattatiri or Narayana Bhattapada.

This

work

is

a reply to the dogmatic views of one Vainateya

who was supposed

to be a

of contemporary of the author

this

work and who avowedly

works of only Panmi, Katyayana and PataJjah accepted the grammatical

as authoritative ones

and rejected

all others,

Thanks

to Prof, E.R, Sree-

krishnaSarma

for

preparing

a scholarly edition of the woiic with an

and copious notes, English translation

Introduction to the work wherein he

The Editor has added an

erudite

summenses

the outlines of arguments

the author in favour of accepting the nonsystematically advanced by

Paniman grammars

also as authoritative.

TIRUPATI,
Dt, 31-12-1968.

J,

CHENNA REDDY,
GENERAL EDITOR,

INTRODUCTION
The Apamniyaprffmanya-sadhanam was described under the
title

Parapaksakhandanam in the Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Curator's Office Library, Trivandrum (1939), No. 475. Through an article under the caption Oru kattu (A Letter) in the issut of the Mathrubhumi weekly, Calicut, dated 5-2-1939, the late pandit
brought to the notice of the public the last portion of the work which is in the form of a covering letter addressed to the scholars of the Cola country in general, and one Somesvara DIkitt
E.V.

Raman Namputiri

and Yajnanarayana Diksita in particular. Subsequently in 1942 the ame scholar brought out an edition of the work with the name Apctmniyapramanaffi which was printed in Devanagari script in the V.V. Press
Branch, Trivandrum.
given on the title present edition
foot-notes) and

curious to note that as per the information page of this edition only 54 copies were printed. The is based on this printed edition (designated R in the
It is

an old transcript of the manuscript described

in

the

Trivandrum Catalogue (designated as Tc in the foot-notes) which was made available to me by Sri M.S.K. Namputiri.

The author of this krodapatra is the well known versatile scholar Melpputtur Narayana Bhattatiri who flourished between 1560 and 1666 A.D. Thus, he was a contemporary of the renowned scholars of Coladesa, like the celebrated Appayya Diksita, Venkatesa Makhin and Rajacudamani Diksita, although there seems to be no full knowledge of the works of Bhattatiri in Coladesa and the works of the Cola
1

scholars in Kerala at that time.

dogmatic views of one Vainateya who held that the grammatical works other than of the trinity of sages, In namely, Panini, Katyayana and Patanjali were not authoritative.
is

The krodapatra

a reply to the

the grammatical work Prakriyasarvasva Narayana Bhattatiri has accepted the authority of the grammars of non-Paninian school. Particularly

Bhoja, the author of the Sarasvatikanthabharana and SrngaraprakSsa was held by him in high esteem and he has even copied some sections of the
Sarasvatikcnthfibhardn-i

his

own grammatical work

to

(e.g.

the

Nyaya-

khandain the Prakriyasarvasva.},

1.

K.K. Raja:

The Contribution of Kerala

Sanskrit Literature,

p. 130.

II

that seeing the Prakriyasarvasva, the Vain&teya Pandita in question might have challenged the acceptance of non-Paninian views by Bhattatiri ; but there is yet no support to this imagination. If we could unearth some work which avowedly denies the authenticity of non-Paninian works, we may be able to understand the
situation under which

One may Imagine

Narayana Bhattatiri wrote

unique
in

this kroAapatra.

the sense that there is no other treatise foiind so far devoting itself to the task of proving the authority of nonPaninian grammars through systematic argumentation, although t^e Ideas expressed herein are found scattered in the works of the trinity* of Sages, the Vakyapadlya and in the works of the grammarians dowa to Bhojadeva* The main idea presented here is that the scope of language is wider aiid the grammar is only an aid to undrestand the correctness of usages. Many noted writers have used forms which are not noticed by Pamni and his followers. Are we to reject those usages as incorrect "because rules for them are not found in the Paninian grammar? Or shall we consider those usages as correct and acceptable even to Panmi though not noticed by him? The fanatics would answer the fksl question in the affirmative, and this treatise is a fitting answer to them. Narayana Bhattatiri is of course a votary x>f the Paninian school. He maintains jthat Paninian rules are the clearest and the briefest of the Sanskrit grammars* But he would not admit that the other grammars are therefore 1100For the grammar is for explaining and codifying the atrthoritative. language, whereas language is too wide to be restricted by grammatical
is

The work

rules.

Beginning from Kaiyyata upto Nagoji Bhatta, there has been a tendency to reject the authority of the non-Paninan grammars and to show forcibly that the forms which are not found in the rules of the trinity of the sages can be somehow or other pressed out of their works. In this process even the religion of the authors has been brought to play a part. For example, the incorporation of some rules of Candragomia in the Kasikavrtti was resented by the votaries of the trinity of sages. The author of the Nyasa has been criticized sometimes very severely, **ork is one presumably on the grouud that he was a Jama although his of outlook in the of the best in the Paninian system. This narrowness academic matters is what is not favoured by Na ayarn Bhattatiri. Of course, his teacher, the celebrated grammarian and astronomer Acaita Pisaroti had already shown this broad outlook in his excellct manual on grammar the Pravesaka Bhattatiri has however given us a well-reasoned treatise vindicating this broad outlook and hberaLty through this

Ill

The Vainateya whose views criticised in this krodapatra is yet to be identified. Appakavior Periyappa Sastri 3 the author of the S?ng3ra
Sahajiyam*, says that his uncle as well as one of his brothers is Vainateya. Dr. V. Raghavan states that there were several Vainateyas, 8 But until the treatise which has been criticised in this krodapatra is known we are unable to identify the Vainateya in question. Appakavi's father Anna Sastri is said to have been in the court of Venkata4 His brother Vainateya is said to have written patiraya of Vijayanagar a commentary on the Prakasa (most probably Rucidatta's commentary on the Tattvacintamani}* This Vainateya must be then a contemporary of Narayana Battatiri, But it is not yet known whether he was maintaining the view that the non-Pamnian grammars werjs not authoritative. The covering letter at the end of the krodapatra is addressed to one Somesvara Diksita and Y&jEanarayana Diksita. The former is still to be identified while the latter must be the scholar minister of Raghunatha Naya^c of Tanjore*. It is also mentioned here that the Somesvara Diksita wa&* a Sctiolar of deep erudition in Grammar, Mimamsa f Vedanta and Tarka and he wrote a work Kamadevu^vijaya and vanquish^
*

one Kiunadeya. The prologue to the Srhgara Sahajiyam referred to above mentions that Arxnan Sastri vanquished one Kamadeya in the court of f Venkatapatiraya* Annan Sastri s other name wa<5 Cidambara according to M. Krishnamachary/ but his identity with Somesvara is still unknown. Ulltir S. Parameswara Aiyar* identifies this Someivara. Witfa 9 but no proof is given to substantiate the author of Raghavayldaviyam The nature of the work KHmadeva-vijaya is also not his statement Was it a treatise on Grammar^ or Mlmamsa or Tarka?" known. >This point is not clear from the reference in this krodapatta*
,

Bhattatiri deserve to be known more It*is hopped^that the present/* edition with the English transwidely.lation and notes will prove to be usefull to the students of Sanskrit in
;

The "works of Narayana

general and of Sanskrit grammar in particular. 2. Described under R.No, 1843 in the Madras Government Orieatai
:

MSS

3.

4.

Library Catalogues. See foot-note No. 3 of the translation of the present work. Vide R No, 1843 of the Madras Government Oriental MSS. Library Catalogue. According to New Catalogus Catalogorum this was Venkatapati III who ruled from* 1632-42
ibid*

5.
6.

The last but one verse of the covering Nayak ruled between 1614 and 1633

letter

indicates this.

Raghunatha

7.

8.

9.

10.

History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 245. Kerala Sahitya Caritram, vol II p. 390. This author's family name was Vinjimur** He was a desciple of one Dvlvedl. See R.No. 1859 of Madras Govt. Oriental Mss Library Catalogue. vol. III. p. 348, it According to New Catalagus Catalogorum* is a

grammatical work.

IMPORTANT NOTE

;e

para

^ sentence 5 of

the Sanskrit Text

nay

be read

as follows

Page

19,

para 13 sentence 3 of the Translation

may be

read as

[Objection;]
safes)

Seem

Patanjali isthekst of all (le n

the three

to can his wnb le mulled ?

ft ikl
to

/Aww:J
all,

cmltcme

FyaJfl, He,, arevho thtkst

twnf
(\kn

in

othr

mid the annulment of Mr wrds other

pmmn

thost of the trinity of sages)

also to le anticipated.

Foot-note No. 33 on page 1}

may be

treated as cancelled.

[These

corrections are necessiated as the result of

my opportunity

to see for myself the original

MS. of the work

after the printing of the

pages

is over,

I crave the indulgence of scholars in this matter,]

E, R. S. S,

3 grot

OT

ft

-%

^TFTTW

fro

surf^Er:

1%

TFft

R.

R.

rs

ff\

qzt
"

srr=bdi

^K
s

i.

II'

|i%

=3

il

^rsfq f|

'f

feK

?T
n

fro

ftl si 1

II

ti

?f

R^RfcT

ff

=rp52fq;

flf^TT

^[cf

s*irf5r
5

R3 c rt

^pgfrf%

11

rr

^rr

H!
i

fe=r>! *)

4 Pt I^JSPT

1%

'

=3

*jr

=3

ii

it

ft^T

II

srfr

^r

=T

fsi

fwrftfy

srr

f| fl

s^f^rr

w^%

f^^r^; n

w^sfq-

33

5WM

HfRf:

II

Ifl \ <Jl

tn

STf

wFT

II

1.

Tc. Q'S^fe

2.
5.

Tc. o 5f4|un^
Tc.

3.

Tc.
Tc.

4. 7. 9.

Tc.

o^t Tc. y^Ji^ R.O%TR;

*fe
sTfr?^; Tc.

6.

8.

10.

PROVING THE AUTHORITY OF NON-PANINIAN GRAMMARS

I,

the

same

Narayana

BOW depending upon

to

O!
ovei

Vainateya"! propose powered your paksi*.

summary
[of this treatise]

maintain

Sudarsana", myself having

This

is

the

Some say that what is said by Panini is authoritativc not the treatises of C.ancha, Bhoja, and others; this is most flimsy, for those who 1 now much do not speak without base; that more people prefer a thing is due to its merits; how was it
3

before
[his]

Panini?

Pauini

predecessor?; even if there be a conflict

lumse.f quotes what was said by an option is to be

presumed.
i.

l,e

non-Pamman giarnmars
2

The author of the Pra nyasarvasva (PS) is admitted.

.

in

winch the authoiily of the

The woid means correct \:evv' as well as the ciated with Narayana, Visnu.

divine disc of that

name

asso-

3.

This name h yet to be identified. There were several Vainatcyn, (piobably belonging to 7?tk*ya far. ly) See: Dr. V. lUghavan, Introduction to tlc Sahendravilt'sa, Tanjore Sai is\vati Mahal Series No, M, p. 44.

4.

Paksa means "view

allusion
bird

o, *opi

non and
3

also the

wing,

to
3

the mythical

-tory

of garudagar\\>bhanga

parvan of th
pertinent
:

AftihZblwata, Canto 1CP,

hu.i

The whole verse is an nauuted in the Udyoga~

celestial

Garuda and brings

where Visnu overposvcrs the

to his

knees

Tie' verses 18 and 32 are most

14

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANINIAN GRAMMARS

1.

Here there are some who, professing themselves to be scholars, grammars composed by the ancient teachers like Indra % Candra Kasakrtsni A p i s a 1 1 s and Sakatayana 9 are not authoritative; what is said by the trinity of sages alone is authoritative. This is indeed rediculous; for the words of Candra and others are to be deemed as authoritative since they are not spoken by untrustworthy peisons. Lack of authority of human words is due to nothing
think that the
6
,
7

else but their being uttered by an untrustworthy person; so Those who speak of the lack of authority for the [grammatical] rules of Candra and others will have to show the proof for their untrustwortlimess.

Their untrustworthmess is not known by direct perception. Nor can it be known by the inference "the words of Candra etc., are not authoritative, because they are not accepted by the righteous, like the non-vedic words', because [the probans] 'non-acceptance by the righteous' is not proved. Who are those that are meant here by Those who are the votaries of the [the expression] 'the righteous'* Vedasl Or those who use correct words? Or only those whom you accept to be the righteous?
2.
3.

In the first instance

it

is

very clear that

the righteous have

accepted other grammars.

a)

For,

Vedavyasa,

etc. 5

the Veda have used

b)

of sages, and it is Bharata was composed by the sage" S a ilk a r ac a r y a has also used the words ^hunet", etc, in his Prapancasara which are not sanctioned by the trinity of sages ln
;

who were the supermost among the votaries of many woids which are not noticed by the trinity recorded that 'after seeing many a grammar the

There Is much controversy regarding this grammarian Some place him befoic Panim, while o.her* either bring him down tj the Po^t-Paninian pe; tod or identify him \ME!I the author of the Katantra. See Systems of Sanskrit Grammar (SSG) by S K. Belvalkar, pp. 10 ff.

6
7.

Ka&akrtsnam. Dictionary oj Sanskrit Grammar (DSG) givcs'the form Kasakrtsna alone as the name of the author. The GatiaratnamahodadhI has only Kasuki tsni The prtittpadika kaiak\tsna is included" In the upakadi (Pa II. 4. 69V and arlhanadi (Pa. IV 2 80) ganas. The Brahmasutras refer to Kasakrtsna, an
author.
is

Candragormn \vlio flourished, probably, in the fifth century \\as made use of by the authors of the Kasika (K). According to the Mahabhasya (MB; the author is Kasakrtsni

A.D

His work
his

and

work

A grammarian
This

referred to by

Panim

in

VI

1.

92, etc.

9
10.

not the ancient teacher known to Fanini, but the Taina grammarian who wtote the Sakatayana-sabdanusasana and a commentary on it. SSG. p. 68 ff. The foi m should btjuhuyat according to Panim. Prapancasara (Arthur Avalon Calcutta 1935), VI. 93, 94, 97. In VI. 91, however, the foimjuhuyat is used,
'

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANIN1AN GRAMMARS

c)

15

d)

ar y a \ etc.. who were the best among the votaries of the Veda, have used the words, visrarna, etc.; the author of the Naisadha, the hero of the followers of the Veda, has

Muranmisra

11

Su

es va

used 'naitflpamedhasi pato ruchnattvam asycf

e)

*;

Vidyaranyacarya who

was the re-estabhsher of the vedic in respect religion has accepted the view of Sakatayana, etc., u in the Dhatuvrttii of the words kathSpayati, etc.
,

f)

the author of the Kaumudl and many others who are noted among the votaries of the Veda have used several words which are not accepted by Panini

Boppadeva
now

15

g)

the revered followers of the Veda in the Northern 6 regard the Sarasvata Grammar/ etc., as authoritative;

even

regions

fa)

the

Kaumudl

'

is

accepted (for stud)/) in

all regions;

i)

Veda prior to Panini's birth should have necessarily accepted only other grammars;
the votaries

of the

and
j)

you yourself havt accepted the Prlitisakhyas whose rules on Vedic usages are quite different fioiv those given by Panini.
Anargharagkava remarks
:

11

1,

10.

(Also see Meghattutam,

27,

where Mallmatha
l)

f^Wt 3T f% 'Snrsf^R?^^

l^fl^^l^

12.

Apparently the author means Bhavabhuti, uhose identity with Suiesvaracarya has the blessings of a tradition. See Dinesh Chandra Bhattachaiya's article in The Indian Historical Quarterly, vol VII, pp 301-8 In PS under Pa. VII. 3. 62, the author mentions* th. form as used by Muran and Bhavabhuti

^;T:

u
viira

Suiesvara*s ^vorks, Vaiskarriin-siddhi But, if we depend upon the word ad f

and the Yartiikas do not have

vistahtt. di

we

cao

show non-Paninum

usages of Suresvara. For Example, the word iivasitnm found in the Brhaduranyaka-bhasya-vaittikam* II. 1. 465, IV 3 728, etc., is noji-Pamman. It must be avamtum as the ro^t $o is an t
13.

The form must be nlpamcdhe as acxi>j ding to Pa. a^dod to niciha only when the latter i- preceded by howevei been justified by resorting to an impliuinan, suor d is The iorrn ha tion provide d by tho word ityam m i'ie sutra See IL
Nmsadhlyaianta, XIII
13

4.

122 the asic suffix

is

14

PS admits kathapavatl as advocated Accoidm_g to Panini the for m i^kathayati But by Sakatayana Sakatayana under IV. 2. 100 we find kathavati Roth and Monier Will tarns record hathapayan.

15.

The MSS. of PS havs Boppadeva although SSG and DSG have Bopadeva alone The doubling may be to f ecihtate Dravidian pronounciation.
Ascribed to ^nubhutisvarupacarya, though the real author seems to be Naren^diwi
dracarya.

16

SSG

p. 17.

17/

The

Prakriya-Kaitittkdl of

Ramacandra

i;

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANINIAN GRAMMARS

.i.

of the sages like Vyasa are valid as to establish their .,r j usas;s. so \\hciQ is the need for other grammars 5 _ Ll t\. Tne phrase 'after seeing many grammars can be taken to mean the same grammar for many times' *. ^ftcf

rejection-]

The usages

^etir.g

\edicusages which are not mentioned tre tnnitj o/ sages, they (Vyasa etc,) should have tesorted to other a^ VM:S *i iea^t for the rules of Vedic words. It is also not proper to
1

A\e::<

In

order

to justify the

such a

stretched

meaning

for

the

expression

'drstva

bahu

5.
s

''Objection]
a>.
1

Now

in the

Siitras
is

late::: e its
v

"Deviation of these rules

",

and Vfiittikas we find such found in many cases (in the

Vedic language the rules vary (in many AH ruk^ are to be understood as optional with regard to the ways 5 Vcd*e language *. s ^> there is no necessity of the search for another
\

cv

language}'
C
.

'In the

j'anmar
hot conect: because if this be tl-e case, why should Pf.-ini and Katyayana instead of being satisfie'J with these statenu* is. exert tiiem^enes to expatiate the lunaming portion related to the Theiofore even for the usages of V>asa, etc., other Knguage? can be lules found of special grammars

'An-^ei

Tins

is

6.

It

cannot be

!>aid

tiiat

tliose

usages can be obtained froin the

PrJiti^khyas:
o\\
i

for they aie a!-o othei

grammars and so
/

it is

against

>our

\\ords.

fa\our

The PrJtisFkhyas are special gramni'ii^ [Objection:] i\ the authority of other genci il grannneis.
]

what we do not

There is nj leason \\hy one should like the special grammars [\rs\\er but d'slike the genera grammars wh^n both are equal in being other than ihe grammai o** P an n i. The point tlr,t because of the rest! ictivc nature of the rajes of Pamni there is Dislike for other grammars 3* suniuir 10 t iat of Parmii \\ill be re r uted eJ^ewhere [in this
i
:

treatise].

words in becon.e one \\ th them' (i.e the " is interpreted bv crnnent ungi.t:nmas:iw.ai \\ords; [^Jiolars] taking the \\orJ apa(at ia as standing for * panimya\abda b y [the method of ]
[Fiic

\eise]

:ha: begins with

C

'thci\

aie thrts ungrLaimatical

t.:e

Mugha

[and ends

in]
1

V\ as a h

ie, Taking /?a/w P: III. 1. 85.

'hid.

as

an ad\erb.

2 122, VI
I

34

VII. 1.8, VII.

I.

103 VII.
S

3.

97 and VII.

4. 78.

MB
Sec:

cu PJ,

4.

%FfW*T; ^sfe:

srr

SHP^

Paiagraphs 13 and 14. The ^ouice is to be traced.

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANINIAN
uttering a
in

GRAMMARS
name/'
laghu

17

part of the

name

instead of the \vhole

just like

[the words] *ga*

(standing) for guru and the works of prosody], it is also stated:

'la'

and

[respectively,

After churning the eighteen Pur anas, nine grammars four Vedas, the Bharata was composed by the sage. 25
Further,

and the

out

Could those gems of words, which the venerable Vyasa tooK of the ocean of grammar, be measured in the small

puddle of
7.

Panini?"

you say) Vyasa is [to be regarded] not versed in grammar same reason of using Vedic words as noii-Vedic words, (my reply is) please do not utter such an ominous word against the omniscient Vyasa. This statement amounts to cutting your own throat, since (according to this) Panini will also have to be deemed as not versed in grammar; for he has used Vrdhir Tidaic where the absence of xs kutva Vedic as has been pointed out by the eJeborate BhSsya 33 So let this argument] beginning with 'why there ;s no kutvam here ". be closed.
(If

for

the

8.

By this [the contention that] the righteous are those

is

who

use

correct words

also set atide.

Moreover the [defect of J interdepen-

dence [in this argument] is also to the paintThe words which arc used by the righteous are alone correct and only ihose who use correct words are the righteous That the words used by the righteous alone
are correct
9.
is

undisputed in the science of grammar. 25

In this

way

the

thud \iew isakofiail.

"Only those

who

have

accepted the views of the tr nity of sages are the righteous' Is not said by any Lruti or smrtL it is only your presumption [If it is contended

of sages alone are authoritative, only those who accccpt them are the righteous, your Blessed Self will have nothing but the beneM of incurring the [defect of] intcrdcthe
trinity
24.

thyt] since

words of the

MB on

Pa

45 (VZtttika

3)

25.
26.

The source is to be traced. Dcvabodha commentator on the Mah~>bharata

is

another veision
\

\\

27. 28.

Aecordmg to Pa. On Pa. I. LI.

VIII. 2. 30 c at the end of a \\ord

is

to

be replaced by

29.

MB

on Pa.

I.

1.

(Va. 13)

IS

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANiNIAN GRAMMARS

[In the argument],,

namely, because the words are authoritative accept them become the righteous, and the words are authoritative because they are accepted by the If [it is the idea righteous. that] the righteous are only those whom you have favoured to be so, then, they could as well be only those who are favoured by us [to be and this debate will onl> prove to be an irrational strife. This is ^o| \\hat is meant bv 'those who know much do not speak without base".

pendence

those

who

This means that as Vyasa, Sahkara and others, who know many things would not use words without a base, they should have accepted other grammars as the source of their usages; thus the probans 'being accepted by the righteous* is proved.
10. No verbal testimony of the Vedas the like is a\ailable showing the lack of authority of other grammais. Nor do we find any direct statement by the trinity of sages or any other work of

orManuand
grammars.

their followers to repudiate the authority of other

.

1 1 The statement (found in some places) that the usages like vfsrama ar; not proper' really means that such words are tc be used according to the rules found in other grammars. arari and Otherwise,
,

\\ho have always held the words of the trinity of sages could not have made such usages.
12.

others",

high reverence

More over, Your Honour is beaten by the inter-dependence [of own your arguments] for, only when the extra authority of the words
,

of the trinity of sages and its followers is established they can rule out the treatises of others, and only when the extra weakness of the other treatises is established as a result of their being ruled out, the extra authority of the words of the former can be proved. Besides, this would amount to say that the extra strength of the words of the trinity of sages is proved only on the strength of the words of the of thus trinity sages [the defect of] self-dependance is also to the point.
;

cannot be said that just as the case of the statement 'five clawed are to be eaten'" the words of the trinity of s iges are restrictive
13.

Tt

that only these words are correct", and so others are not authoritative , for, the absence of such a restriction is evident ft cm the statements made very often that 'the [suffixes] Tip, etc are to to followed to the
fc

usage""

as well as

from the acceptance of akrtiganas.

according Otherwise,

as

30.

vii

3.

34
12. supra.

also bee f.n

32

MB on

Kfanusrnrti, V. 17, 18 Pa. IV. 1 3, Padama'ijarl

on Pa. IV.

I.

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANJNIAN GRAMMARS

Panini and katyayana have
Panini's

19

already restricted that 'these of the author of the Bhasya would alone are correct', the emendations of Katyayana would also be ruled have no authority. The statements

out by
othei

revered [among

the Vedic since their rules dealing sages are taken as restrictive, ^with correct usages, the Pratisakhyas will also language have determined the

grammars

Because Pat a 5 ja I is the most restrictive rules. the three] in order to avoid the nullification of his words ss If the words of the three have also to be ruled out.
J

have to be repudiated.

no special lules regarding the Vedic language [Objection:] Since aie noticed in the works of the three sages, only the grammars dealare ruled out by them, not the Pratisakhyas ing with the general rules which deal with the special rules regarding the Vedic language. For even the special rules cannot hold. [Answei ] This argument in the mles (of the three seen regarding the Vedic language arc clearly o belonging to the vocative singular (is sages) such as '[The sound] iti *\ "In the Yajus the word pragrhyd) when followed by a non-vedic o will not gst euphonic change when followed by a\~* uras ending 'The (words) deva and sumna [will get a for their la^t phoneme] in the Kathaka-yajus**\ samasMkah," '[A \owelj preceded by a pint a will be
14.
y

'

is not to be replaced by yan in order to prevent its elongation /* etc. It said that the restriction does not operate with regard to the Vedic usages because of the statement *fcr the Vedic (language) the rules are to be presumed in accoi dance with the usages found"', for when the grammar

entirety is recognized to be restrictive, it is haidly possible to exclude the lesinctive natur^ of the vedic poition which is also included in it. The rules regarding the clas->ical language also equally follow
in
its

the coriect usage of the r-ghteous, for agi'in and again on 5 finds the * statement that the grammar Josely follows the usage of the righteous Therefoie in a giammar which is evidently not exhaustive due to the [concept of] akni^ana, etc., it is impossible to havearestnctionth.it
*tne

usage of these words aloae bring in the unseen merit

3 .

The restnc-

33.

The redding p- apt am found n the the suggestion to read badh am.
\

MS

does not make the sense coherent,

34 35 36
37.

Pa
ibid

1. 16.

VI

1.

117.
38.

ibid.

VIL4.

38

This rule could not be traced Va. on Pa. VI. 1. 77

39.

MB on Pa. I.
See
f.

1. 6,

Va.

40.

n. 29

supra

20

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANINIAN GRAMMARS

=

tion could only be that a merit will

to those

which are derived here; other than these'/

1

emerge by the usage of words similar and a dement by the usage of words

of taddhita when the author of the Vrttt made a statement to the effect that (the correctness of words is to be determined) by following the usage of the righteous/ 42 the author of
15.

That

is

why

in the context

the Padamarijarl said*

4

[If it

be asked] what

is

After knowing the [correct] persons who use them in the right way, one understands that "these 5 This leads to the knowledge that their usages persons are the righteous other than those [found in the grammar] are also to be accepted. So the
.

grammar for, the answer is this words given in the grammar and noticing the
then the
:

grammar

is

for recognizing the righteous

5
.

4?1

Therefore [the contention]

set aside.

that the grammatical rules are lestnctive

16.

is

Further, if it is maintained that the words of those (i.e the three sages) are powerful because ofthestatenie.it of Bhasya, etc., then it would be easier to say 'my word is authoritative
,

because
17.

it is

said by

me

5
.

proved that there is no verbal testimony either superhuman or human teaching the non-authority of other grammars. This is u hat is meant by those who know much do not speak without base'. The sense is that the author of the JBhasya, etc.,, who know much would not make a baseless statement amounting to the non-authority of other grammars and the authority of their own words, because it (such a stateit is
c

Thus

ment)

vitiated by self-dependence- Even if there be, in certain cases, an adverse criticism of other grammars, it is only for the pleasure of
is

reasoning. Further, more than a hundred of aphorisms like 'here up to the end of the rules icferring to the name bham [the rules are] as if they

have not operated'/ 4 though nullified by the Bhusya have not been dis~ cared. So the science of grammar is objective.
18 [Objection :] The authority of the words of tl e thiee sages alone and the non-authority of other-grammars are proved by [the mems of] Presumption, as otherwise the acceptance of the former alone by the majonry [of scholars] could not be well accounted for.

4i

MB

vol. i. p. s.
I.

vi.
140.

Vakyapadlya,
42
43, 44,

K. VI

3.

109.
is

The quotation Pa VI 4- 22.

not here verbal

Also see

MB on

Pa % VI,

109.

AUTHORITY OF NON-PAN1NIAN GRAMMARS

21

[Answer:] This is notconect. The acceptance by the majomy. can be accounted lor by the reason of [their] having the special merits of clant}. brevity, etc. Because of this it is impossible to prove the non-authority of others. Otherwise, because among the works on Logic, Mani a alone is accepted by the majority, the works like Kusumanjali" KiranavaW\ the 4H Bhasya of P a k s a etc., would be non-authoritative. In the field of also for the reason that K a i y a t a's gloss has been grammar accepted by many the glosses ofBhartrhan, etc., should be non-authoritative. Similarly because among the moral codes that of Mann, r.mong the Puranas the Bhagavata, and among the Siksas that which belongs to Saunaka are accepted by manv, other works [in these fields] would be iion-aulhontalive; and saying so you would become the foremost
,

those

who do not

among

follow the Vedas.

That the works of Pamnian school

have special meiit i* acceptable to us also. What is not acceptable is only the non-authority of others By this the argument that the grammar of Panini alone is authoritative because it is the one that has been
accepted in interpreting the Mimainsa", etc., is also refuted. It is quite reasonable that it is accepted in the Mlmamsa, etc., because it is well

known

for

its

merits.

By
is

this

there
is

authority for otheis

This
is

what

no room for presuming nonmeant by [the statement] 'that tnoie

is

people prefer a thing

due

to its merits'.

19. Moreovei, lie who argues as shown above will ha\e to say how the correct usage of words existed before Panini. It can never be said that there was no usage of correct words at that time for [in thar case], as there could be no correctness [of usages] through uha. etc., there
;

would have been confusion

have also gone
also
to iieli

the performance of all rituals

50
5

all

wouM

become people knew the

by thr ir.age of incorrect words, 51 all v.ould ha\e barbJiou^. 52 It cannot be maintained that at thai tiive
coirjct
sruti that

injunction of the

Veda including its <ix were no grammar) duj

45. 46.
47.

winds without a grammar; for thjre is tiie brfthncna should study and understand the auxili nes without any motive*/" and ^if theic
I

.L

to

the non-study of the

MX

auxiliaries in the.r

An

Tattvacint&maiii of Ganges* padhyayaindependent work of U Jay ana.

48. 49.

50.

the Prasas apada-bhrsya by Ut'ayana. Otherwise L no\\ n as Vatsy; yana Sabara in commenting on the Mimanisa-sutras and Kumanla on Sahara s Bhasya, etc See MB, vol. I, p. 1 wheie uha is one of the purposes of the stuck of grammar.
ibid. p. 2.

Commentai y on

51.
52.

under

dttstah

sabdah 'yas

tit

ptaytmkte'

ibid.
Ibid. p.
1

53*

22

AUTHORITY OF NON-VANINIAN GRAMMARS

is

be studied, or that i n n i alone is the auxiliary the v.ork of P (of the Veda) What the author of the Bhasya too, repeatedly says is "therefore grammar is to be studied not Taninian grammar is to be studied*. Therefore, because prior to the Paninian grammar other grammars alone were accepted by man\, their authority arising from such acceptance, which is otherwise inexplicable, cannot be prevented.
to
i
:

entirety all should be non-brahmanas. Nor there effect that at that time only five auxiliaries were

any statement

to

the

54c

20 Moreover, if we prove the authority of something for the reason of its being accepted by many, the works prior to Panini would become superior for the simple fact that formerly those works alone were accepted by many and are wide-spread even now, but the work of is accepted by many only now because it was not available older times.

Pamni
21.

[Objection

:]

Although the older works were previously author-

itative, after the

advent of the work of P

anmi

their

authority

faded

away. [Answer:]

This cannot be so,

How

could the authoritativeness of those which were once

/

If it authoritative be obliterated bv the efflux of time? could be, even Sruti and Smrti, etc.. might loose their

authority at some time

That is why not caring for the open sta cement by ^omebody that dharma instructed by Mann (prevails) 65 but in the Krtayuga in the Kahyuga too the words of Manu are cited as authority. So authority does not fade awa> by the efflux of time. There can indeed be a variation This is what is meant by in acceptance due to the variation in merit. how was it before P a n n i
9

'the

the
to

In this vva> when the lack of reason for the non-authority (of 22* non-Pamman works) is established, the authoruv of those works is be established by [the reasoning] those \\l\o knov, much do not say
%

n d r a and others are [That is to say] the \\ords of authoritative, because they ar^ words having some basis, like those of P a n i a \ 'their words have some basis because they are the words of

without base".
i

Ca

in i ) "they do know much just like those (of because they are the authors of the scientific treatises just like Panini*.
those

who know much,

Pan

54.

ibid

pp. 1-4.

moie than
9

ten times.

55

Paiu^ara-smrti

I.

24

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANINIAN GRAMMARS

23

23. Without knowing many sides of what is to be said nobody would attempt to write a scientific treatise. And even if somebody attempts, he would become a victim of redicule. Therefore, for the reasons that even those (non-Panmian) authors renowned for their scientific treatises must be knowing the extension of the science of language, and that there is no room to suspect them of mistake or deception and if there be, such a suspicion could hardly be ruled out in respect of Pan in also, it is evident that the other (non-Paniman) grammars are also authoritative because of their being written by trustworthy persons.
i

24. [Objection :] We say that the other grammars have no authobecause rity they do not serve any purpose inasmuch as the usages of the righteous can b? vmdicted by [the method of] implications, etc found in the work of P ani ni
,
.

[Answer:] This is al>o not so. For, in certain instances seeing the usage the rules are to be assumed while in certain (other) instances seeing the rules the usage is to be assumed - this much is undisputed Pa rum's grammar with avowed even by those who follow when a is As such found accepted by the righteous it is fidelity. usage to be explained by implication, etc. But in the instance of kathapayati, where the rule the is found only in other grammars 50 etc., (for usage) how could there be non-authsnty [of other grammars] on the ground that they have no purpose to serve. Moreover, even in the case of the
usages visrama, etc., accepted by the righteous., the reljv.mt rules are clearly found in other grammars. Therefoic the assumption of implications, etc by force, becomes cumbersome. In spite of this [fact] with a desire to display one's self-confidence and an intention to payinc* one's respects to the three s:^ges, if such usages are vindicated by resort,

to implications, etc., \ve onl>

welcome

it.

Bat this cannot mean that

the other grammars do not s^rve any purpose or wield any authority us stop this here.
25.

L"t

Further, the authority of the ancient teachers is acceptable to For example, in the rules "ani < nd otheis. ctipch';* "auna the ancient teachers a/c etc., the technical n tines accepted bj tlpaHf In [tae rules] 'According to S a k a t a directly maintained. y a n~a

Panini

56. 57.

i.e

that of Sakatayana
3.

Pa. VII.

105. ati

is

the

name

pre-Panmian grammars.
58.
ibid.

for the instrumental singular according to

th e

VII

accusative.

aim stands for the dual number of both 18 This satnjna is taken from the ancients.

nommathe and

24

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANINIAN GRAMMARS

va
s

(the sounds) ing to p i

and ya may be pronounced with

!
i

less

stress"/"

'Accord1

Bhaguri
1

[the rule is] optional when a nominal verb follows' *, desires an elision of the a in the prefixes ava and

of the ancient teachers are also directly expressed. A rule does not become optional by simply mentioning the names of the ancient teachers, only when their view is recognized as 'this is their view and this is mine*, the rule could be optional. Moreover, after criticising what is said by the ancient teachers, the instances' 'this (i.e., concord of gender and number) need not be ruled because it has the authority of conventional term'", ehsion [need not also be ruled] h because of the noncurrency of the etymological meaning' \ in the rules like 'when meaning the ciide' kingdom [these affixes Panini clearly accepts the words of the ancient teaches which were once
api'*
,

vie\vs

fji

understood that even though HI certain cases for the sake of the pleasure of reasoning criticisms are offered, the words of the ancient teacaers are nevertheless acceptable.

criticised.

By

this it

is

only pleasure of displaying self-confidence in argumentation. Let this be understood as such by the learned. has not, indicated the therefore, rejection [of others' words.]

26, Intliis way since Panini accepts even that \\hich iscnticised by himself, if elsewhere in the commentaries etc., tns view of the ancient teachers is found is it for the criticised,

Panini

Therefore he who accepts the authority of what is said by Panini alone has [necessarily] to accept the authority of older texts also because they are accepted by him (Panini), This is what is meant by
4

Panini

also quotes

what

is

said by his pi edecessors*.

27. Moreover, it is said that 'this tradition of grammer is without a beginning'* so it is to be maintained that P a nl n i wrote his treatise after considering the previous grammars as his source. The P 'treatise a n of i n i is given under the *ule example, enounced by him' and not under (in the meaning of) a book made on
15
'
'-

[a subject]"".

59.

ibid. V11I.
ibid. VI. 1

318
92

60
61

Tnough
Scev^J
Pa*
ibid ibid
I

this is
i

Dot found p 131 and vol.

in

MB, RupZvatara and PiaLrnr-katimudi quote

317, respectively

this

I, p.

62
63

53.
54.

1. 2.

64
65
66.

IV. 2 81
I.

See I'ui^apadlya,

142, 145.

MB

\oi

i,

p 12

67
68.

Pa IV 3 101. See also K. ibd IV 3. 116.

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANINIAN GRAMMARS

25

So it is understood that P a n i n i only enounced the science of gramma; with a different type of technical precision and did not himself :avent ii Therfore, he who says that the previous treatises do not ha\e authontj because they are non-Pannuan is virtually proving that the treatise of P a n i n i does not have authority because it does not have any source. In this way the demolishrnent of all grammars is brought about b\ the great grammarian that you are,

Because P a n i n i made his rules after ] [Objection considering the ancient treatises as well as the usages and removing those deserving rejection, what is not said by P a run i is nideed to be rejected. [Answer J This cannot be. If what is not said by P a n i n i is ;o be rejected, it amounts to the rejection of what is explained by the It cannot also be said that although the authors of the Varttika too. Varttika are not omniscient, there cannot be any doubt the Sutras and about the omniscience of the venerable author of the Bhasva, who is 69 and what is not said by him is to be rejected, for verily Sesa himself, even though he knows every thing, it is possible that he has not said ever\ 70 Otherwise, wh> thing because there is no end of the things to be said. should he determine the akriigana, etc. Tins <s sufficient for the present
28.
:

*"

29

It is 5

The son of Daksr

therefore, to be concluded as below explained [the science of grammar]

:

after

considering several [previous] treatises along with the usages. those [points] which w,:re left out by him were explained by K a t y a y a n a the sage Pataiijali explained those that weie not noticed by Katyayana; and what is not said even by him is explained by B h o j a and otiers after seeing some of the usages and [also] the ancient treatises*
;

Therefore it is jviden: that the authomy of the ancient treatises which were the source for P a n i n i\ work cannot be questio led. T/i;:, P a 11 i n i also quotes what is said by ii.s pr^ris what is meant bj
w

ecessors*

there

Le: it be as said above in the instances wheie [Objection no disagreement, but where there is a disagreement [of otiur what is said in other treatises works] with what is said by P a n n
30.
]

is

i ?

should
69
70.

become

nullified.

Artanta, the thousand- tounged mythical serpant. cf. vol. 3, p 5.

MB

^f^Tp
p. 794:

Praknya Kaumudl, vol

71.

II,

cf

MB.

voi

I, p.

75:

26

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANINIAN GRAMMARS

is

For, the fact that they cannot be nulliAs in the fied has come to stay on account of their having authority. case of the offering of the oblations after the sun rise or before the sun

[Answer-] This
f

not correct.

rise

taking up or not taking up the sodasigraha, here also an u alternative alone is to be assumed. That is why in the Smrticandrika and other works, at many places, where a disagrement between the
7*
1

and,

statements by the authors of moral codes

is

found, both (views) are

maintained acceptable as alternatives

places by mentioning the [names of] ancient teachers 5 Panini verily sake of making the rule optional/ views both are to be indicates that incase of a difference
In

many

for the

accepted
31.

(as alternatives).

[Objection:] Because two treatises speak of the correctness and incorrectness for the same word, actually there are no two words;

such cases] to maintain a conflict; and as such there is no possibility of an alternative, as in the case of "the taking up or not taking up (of the $odasi%raha}\ Answer-] This cannot stand. No treatise instructs [us of] the incorrectWe are only instructed by ness of what is said by another treatise. of showing the direction that the words which are not accounted jWay for by rules or usages of the righteous are incorrect. This is already said at the time of criticising the view that the (Paninian) rules are restrictive. Moreover, the taking up of or not taking up sodasi is also enjoined by the two rules maintaining it to be a cause of either an unseen [merit] or an offence. So, to the question how in this case there could at
so
it is

proper

[in

least be an optional activity for those who resort to sruti, there must be an answer; and the same answer will hold good here too. Thus it is proved that even if there be an appearance of conflict, either (alternative) is to be accepted. This is \vhatis meant by 'even in the case of a conflict an alternative is to be assumed
7
.

32.

and others.

Further there can be no conflict between the words of Panini In the informative aphorisms there cannot be any restric5

added only to these ^terns f^r there can be no restriction with regard to something which is not previously known. Nor can a restriction be presumed on the ground of the maxim "all
tion that 'this suffix
is
;

statements are emphatic

72.
73.

(in their
II. 7.

meaning}

for

the

emphasis

is

even

Kausitaki

Erahmana,

74
75
76.

Maitrayaniya-samhita, IV. 7 6. The well known wor k of Devanabhatla

Pa VIII.
cf.

19, etc.

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANJNIAN GRAMMARS

27

Otherwise possible for the exclusion of what is not previously known. there would be no room for the two types of rules, informative and Therefore in the case of informative rules there can be restrictive. with other rules even if they contain something extra. no conflict And
the case of an aphorism which is restrictive by way of its being an exception to the general rule, there can be no conflict [with others] even if others say something extra; because there is the [accepted] maxim, ln some places even in the realm of an exception the general rule can operate' '.
in
c

33.

It

is
c

not
5

to

be maintained that

where PIninj

sa\s

'no*

while others yes there will be a conflict; for by [the maxim] 'those' [rules] which are conveyed by the method of implication or inclusion in a gana or expression of a no are not peremptory* U 3 it is stated
c

that

conveyed by [the expression] no' is not peremptory,, so it is conveyed by no ) cannot be in conflict with others. Nor (what can it be said that there can be a conflict with the arguments advanced in the Bhasya, etc. For,
is
c
s

what

based on the technical maxims and are obtained through implications. Those which are conveyed by implications are optional; and those which are optional cannot be conflicting.

The

arguments

are

technical maxims

[correct] words were to be known through reasoning alone their correctness will be thrown into confusion. Therefore the wise prove the [correctness of] words depending upon
If the

reasoning is correctness employed. maintaining [the why of] a word by reasoning, tlie consideration of the speaker arises.' 9 Therefore when those jrc enlightened in the language prove a word in two ways by their reasoning, both are to be accepted
is

firm

usages

and That

ancient

grammars

even while

in

because both of them have some basis

conflict has already been explained*
34.

And

the absence of a

reasoning
77.

[Objection:] In ccitain places even without an implication the is expressly com eyed as in the case of the aphorism, 'When
Pa. VII.
4. 82.

MB on

(Va. 2)

^R^I^ri^n^^^T 3^4 ff^

(125)

3ff

Ses Paribhasenduekhara
I

9TT4)iiS! T ^TW PS Nyayakhanda: ( 96 >

79.

Namely, whether he

i*

trustworthy (apta) or not.

28

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANiNlAN GRAMMARS

rules of equal force are in conflict with each other, the latter [in the order] is to take effect** ; and in such cases there will be a conflict as it

expressly conveyed) is not optional. is not correct: because even in the case of an This express [Answer-] statement, it has been previously pointed out that there is no conflict betweeen the affirmative and negative points. Therefore, all grammars are equally authoritative as they are not in conflict with each other. This is what is meant by the word even in (the pluase) 'even if there be a conflict' which indicates that there can be no conflict.
(i

e.,

what

is

fc

[Objection.] Now let it be that the ancient giammar& are authorbecause they are the compositions of sages. But how could one speak of the authority for the words ofBhoja, Boppadeva, etc., who belong to the later times.
35.

itative

those who know much [Answer:] Even to this (objection) we say do not speak without basis'. Bhoja etc., who definitely know much because of then interpretation of all the rules found i the Bhasya, etc., must have composed their treatises depending upon other rules and the usages of competent people; therefore, those (works) also indeed have authority just like the works of Pani ni and others. In holding that in the grammar of the trinity of &>ages there is the gradation of authority in the order of sequence, the reason for such gradation should be nothing but 'knowing much more*. For, it is not proper to assume an unseen reason when a seen one is feasible, And such a 'knowing much more* is equally possible with Bhoja and others also. Therelore, they deserve indeed special respect.
4

clause beginning with "those who know much* has an,1hei Those who know much will not aiake the baseless statement meaning that other grammars are not authoritative Even Vidyaranya, who definitely knows more when compared to the ,e persons have not SMd so Therefore only due to lack of acq.iintance with many treatise* th s opponent prattles without any base and sen >e of sln-:ne; so he d nothing but ridicule
16.

The

also

ancient

Through argumentations certain persons attempt to prove the grammars baseless; and proclaim th^n unacceptable
[although]

The
80,

fact
i
J.

is

the trinity of sagos has not repudiated tli^rn. that many people accept this (the grammar" of

Fa.

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANINIAN GRAMMARS

the three sages)
others; that
false.
is

29

because

why

has more merits when compared with this person mistakes all other treatises to be
It

la this way, by establishing the authority of other grammars though the attempt of the opponent to establish their non-authority has been implicitely washed out, his argument! will be repudiated now
37*

by showing detailed reasons.

has been said (by the opponent) that Sankaracarya and others while interpreting the revealed texts have accepted Paniman The other grammars grammar alone; so it alone is authoritative. do not have authority because they are not accepted for the sake of interpreting [the revealed texts].
38.
It

This is flimsy. Even Sankaracarya, Murari and others have accepted other grammars as the basis of their usages. The acceptance or non-acceptance for the sake of interpretation is due to their (i.e., the grammars) being known more widely or less; they (ue, the acceptance or non-acceptance) do not serve in establishing authority or non-authorThe argument itself that they (i.e., the other grammars) are not ity. accepted for the purpose of interpretation is not correct; for Vidya1 ranya while considering the word kathapayati, the author of Prasada* in many places of his commentary, Visvesvara - the commentator on 11 Nalsadha** - in interpreting the word alpamedhas, Ksi r a s yarn!, Sat van an da 84 and the author of the Subodhini** in interpreting the have accepted them (i.e., the other grammar) Lexicon of The commentator on the Vedic in the course of their commentaries. Lexicon** has accepted the aphorisms of Bhoj a throughout. And in the It has their authority alone has to be acceptedage before been already said that there is no reason for the fading away of the
3

Amarasimha

Pamni

authority once established.

81.

82

commentator on the Praknyakaumudl Padavakyarth^pahcika, Adyar Library, MS. No 68474. Descriptive Catalogue, vol. V, S. No. 174 On leaf No. 128
Vitthala, the

83

The Commentary

is

called

Amaraka&odghatana Edn Poona,

1913, 1943.

84
85.

The author belonged to the Vandiis called Tikasarwsvam. in 1 160 A D. was work the and composed ghatly? family the on AmarakoSa by Jataveda-dfksita, This is a very elaborate commentary have flourished in the latter is to The author son of Devanabhatta. supposed

The commentary

$6.

part of the twelfth century. Durgacarya, the cormnentator on the \ifukta of Yaska.

30

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANINIAN GRAMMARS

39. Then it is said (by the opponent) that the other grammars are to be rejected because of their conflict with what is said by the trinity of sages, whose rules are restrictive that 'these alone are correct words'. This [argument] has also been set aside by refuting in more than one way the restrictive nature [of Paninian rules] advanced by the opponent. The reason Is also shown that if the Paninian rules are restrictive, the varttikas would also become non-authoritative. The argument that where there is a conflict betv^ n two views either alone must be accepted is also shown as inconclusive in the instances of 'the taking up or not taking up of sodas? and of the alternatives put forth by two moral codes as represented in the Sm^ticandrika, etc. That there is no conis flict because of the absence of restriction also (in Paninian rules)

affirmed.
40. [The opponents' view] that the usages of V y a s a are based on the special grammars called Pratlsakhyas^ is also not correct. Because It lias already been pointed out that when both are equal in respect of their being non-Paninian, there Is no reason to favour the special In addition, it will be hardly grammars and hate the general ones. in view of the the to maintain the authority of the opponent possible PratisakhyaS) Inasmuch as (according to him) the rules (of P a n i n i)

on the Vedic language have already

laid

down

the restriction that 'these

[usages] alone are correct in the Vedas\

Then it has been said that since the references to the names of 41. ancient teachers can be explained by assuming the purpose of making the rules optional, their authority has not been accepted. This is also not true. While saying 'this is my view and this is his', if the authority of the other is not accepted, there can be no alternative at all; so it is self-contradictory. By simple mentioning of the name [of the teachers] the rule cannot become optional; and If [their] authority Is not accepted, there is no question of maintaining them (i.e.,, the references) as indicating reverence.
42
teachers)

Then it has been argued that this (i.e., references to ancient can happen as is found in the MlmamsU^ etc., where the name;*

This is also of unacceptable predecessors are (some times) mentioned. not sound; for there the other's view is mentioned for criticising it; whereas here there is no such thing. [The argument] that though in the Mtmnmsa-sutr a] - tatpramanam badarayanasyanapeksatvdt^ (the as while is mentioned view the deities other's acceptable, discussing
87.

Jatmim-sutra* I.I.

5.

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANINIAN GRAMMARS

having a body, etc-/
1

31

other's view

Is

rejected;
is

grammar) also the same can happen

so here (in the case of un-sound. For there also all

the schools of the Vedlsts are found to have been accepted as different views.
43.
It

has also been said that the author of the Kaumudi and others

own

have quoted the views of ochers in order to reveal the expansion of their This [argument] intellect, and not because of others' authority. lacks coherence. By quoting something which is not authoritative, th@ dullness of the intellect alone could be revealed. Thus in the opponent'* contention those points which go against what we have said art

refuted.

Therefore, every thing is fine; because Vainateya! who by citing a multitude of others' works only establishes what I have
said, is indeed, a very close friend

of mine.

O!

the renowned scholars of the celebrated Cola region! someone declared the other grammars (than that of P a n n i) to
i

be devoid of authority; thereupon we also said something as above. Since this (what I have said) has been enounced in the
[works like] Kaumudi and Dhatuvrtti on the basis of their (i.e., the other grammars) being equally an auxiliary to the Veda (as the Panmian grammar), I have written down this with the hope that this would be acceptable to you. O! the

eminent [scholars]

you may kindly scrutinize

this.

Sri Somesvaradiksita!" the foremost

among

the learned!

O!

the erudite in both the

having heard of you as

truth
I

MimSwsSs, grammar and logic! one of invincible nobility knowing the

(of things), a reservoir of kindness

:

entreat

Here

minded, may
ibid.

and well composed, written me: the highsomething by you, kmdh accept this.
is

Although Jaimini does not explicitly say that deities to whom oblations are offered do not have a physique, $abara states 8 Sfrijtf 5JT5?
4, 23.
*

X.

see
cf Naisadhiya-carita,

Khandadeva on

this

39

89.

He

is

yet to be identified.

32

AUTHORITY OF NON-PANINIAN GRAMMARS

known), the coumer arguments in the are extremely anxious to see it. It Kamadevavijaya^. may therefore be immediately sent (to us). The idea [of this request] is that seeing the method of argumentation set forth by the clearsighted [scholars] like you, we may get our

You have

written

(it is

We

thoughts clarified at once.

When Kamadeva 91 employed

93

the reasoning (also directed the was effected by you through destruction (also his) weapon} 93 This is indeed proper effective observations (also glance). for one who owns the name somesvara and is omniscient.
its

There
the
,by

who having armoured himself well protects king of serpents, who was pushed aside by your erudition, placing him as a bracelet; and the divine river who was
is

the god

cast away by the force of your oration, by placing her in his In this way, O! the learned Yajiianarayaiia matted hair. Diksita! you steal away, by your intelligence, the pride of of omniscience of even that god, who affords protection to
94 your enemies.

extensively learned in Politics depends on you to take decision in the matters concerning the country; when renowned scholars assemble with some doubt, you alone stand as the judge; who, even if he be equal to the preceptor of the
is

The King who

O! Yajmanarayana Diksita! can gods, can stand up to you? ? any other person who equals you in wisdom be found
90.

95

According to The
is

New

Catalogus Catalogorum, vol

III,

p. 343

91.
92.

grammar written by Somesvara in reply to a work An author of that name as well as the god of love.
a work on

Kamadeva-vijaya by Ka-nadeva

is taken here as the saptami of hetit with reference to the author Kamadeva and hetu with reference to Kamadeva (god of love)

The word hetau

93.

Somesvara Diksita retaliated

critical observations,

while God

the arguments of the author Kaaiadeva by Siva destroyed Kamadeva by His glance.

94.

The thousand-tongued mythical serpent is supposed to be having infinite knowledge- The power of speech is always compared to the force of current of Ganga. The idea seems to be that ^tva is protecting them without knowing of their defeat at Yajnanarayana's hands. The knowledge of the scholar,
therefore, surpasses that of the

God.

93.

The root

In the first stha in atmanepada is used here in its venous meanings Pa. to I it is 3, 23 instances, second according and Praka&ana-stheyakhyayos ca etc the states that word stheya as one who ibid Bhatti, interpret PS under or a decision who for himself is the judge when others others on taking depends The seek a decision. Here the root is used in both the senses, respectively third sense *to stand upto* is found in the third usage of the root in the verse.
,

*f

Tie
people

in Kerala in

general

are

very

icate

aid

sictly,

'one

is

SRI

VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY
is

of Sri Venkateswara University publications available for sale, at prices mentioned against them. S.V. UniverIt contains sity Oriental Journal is the only multi-lingual publication.
the
list

The following

mostly in English and Sanskrit. In some of the numbers articles in Telugu or Tamil or Hindi also are published. All the other works are
articles

uni-lingual publications.

S.No.

Particulars of the

Work

Price

Rs. Ps.
1.

S.V. University Oriental Journal -do-do-

Vol.

Parts

&

2 (1958) 2 (1959) 2 (1960)

2 (1962)

10-00
10-00
10-00

2.

Vol.

II

Parts

&

3.

Vol. Ill Parts

Vol.

&
& &

4.

-do-do-do-

Parts

10-00

5.

Vol. VI Parts

2 (1965)
(1964)

10-00
10-00

6.

Vol. VII Parts

1&2

ENGLISH
7.

Rupaka Sameeksha
Veda Sameeksha

1964

4-00

8.

1964
1967

6-00 5-00

9.

Ramayana Sameeksha
The Tejnples of Kalinga
by Dr. M.

10.

Rama
Rama

Rao, M.A., Ph.D.

1965

5-00

1 1

Saivite Deities of

Andhra Desa
Rao, M.A., Ph.D.
&.

by Dr. M.
12.

1966

6-00

Indian Aesthetics - Music

Dance
1966 1-50

by
13.

Sn

K.S.

Ramaswami

Sastry

Administration and Society in the Carnatic by Dr. K. Rajayyan, M.A., Ph.D.

Select Kakatiya

1966

8-00

14.

Temples
M.A., Ph.D.

by Dr. M.

Rama Rao,

1966

5-00

15.

A A

Study of Telugu Compounds by Dr. J. Suryanarayana, M.A., Ph.D., Study of TeJugu Semantics by Dr. G.N. Reddy, M.A., Ph.D.
light

1966

5-00

16.

1966

4-50

17.

The Philosophy of A.N. Whitehead in the Advaita Vedanta of Sankara by Dr. P. Nagaraja Rao, M.A., Ph.D.

of
1966

3-00

18.

The Values of Shavian Drama

by Dr.
S.

Rama Rao

1966

4-00
6 _ 5o

19.

The Srirangam Temple by Dr. V-N. Hari Rao

Ikshvakus of Vijayapuri by Dr. M. Rama Rao, M.A., Ph.D.

1 967

20.

1967

9^00

21.

Student Performance and Adjustment by Dr. S. Narayana Rao, M.A., Ph.D.

Inscriptions of Andhra

1967

9-00

22.

Desa

Vol. I

by Dr. M.
23.

Rama

Rao, M.A., Ph.D.

1967

17-25

Geometrization of Dynamics by Dr. P.S. Rao, M.A., Ph.D.

1967

_ 00

SANSKRIT
24

Gajagrahanaprakara of Narayana DIksita Ed. by Dr. E. R. Sreekrishna Sarma

968

2 -50
to

25.

of Narayana Bhattapada 1968 Apa^inlyaprlmanya-sadhanam Ed. by Dr. E. R. Sreekrishna Sarma

be

fixed

TELUGU
26.

Thyagaraja's Prahlada Bhakti Vijayam by Prof. P. Sanibamurthy

1965

7_ OQ

TAMIL
27.

Muthollayira Vilakkam by Sri N. Subbu Reddiar

1965

7-00

Ill

28,

Hindi Kavya Ruponka Adhyayan

by Dr, R.B, Sarma, M,A ph,D,

,

29,

Acharya Hazari Prasad Dvivedi Vyaktitva aur Kntitva

by Dr, B.K, Sathyanarayana

1957

4.55

>

(1)

All the University Publications are now

supplied only on

prepayment of cost and postage

either by money-order or

demand

draft, payable to the Registrar of this University,

This condition of prepayment

may

be relaxed to some Local

Library

extent in the case of Registered publishers,

Authorities, Universities, Affiliated Colleges and other recog-

nised Educational Institutions

India on

correspondence,
to

nominal discount of

5%

to

10% may be allowed

them on

their

own

merits,

(2)

trade discount of 25/i

is

allowed to

all

the

Registered

Book-Sellers only,