How Far Did Paninis Fame Really Extend In Patanjalis View

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269500/1

Page #1

HOW FAR DID PANINI'S FAME REALLY EXTEND
IN PATANJALI'S VIEW? (Studies in Patanjali's Mahābhāsya IV)
A WEZLER
0. The article which V.P. Limaye has contributed to the "Diamond Jubilee Volume" of the BORI' bears the title "ākumāram yasah pāņineh corrupt for akumari yaśaḥ påņineh?.'? The question mark signals, it would seem, that what Limaye actually wants to do is to argue that akumaram is in fact corrupt and should therefore be emended to akumari. As this statement of Patanjali's about Pāņini is not only widely known among Sanskrit scholars not to speak of the many amateurs of this beautiful language— but evidently also of some importance in terms of an Indian History of Idcas, I should like to critically examine the reasons offered by Limaye in support of his thesis.
1. The first paragraph of his articlc reads thus:' "Patanjali in his Mahabhasya (MBh.) on Pānini ... 1.4.89 än maryādā vacane says: akumaram yasah panineh, that is to say, asă asya (Pāṇineh) yaśaso maryādā ('this is the limit of Panini's fame). What does this' mean? The Pradipa of Kaiyața explains: kumāran api yaśaḥ prāptam ity arthah. The Udyota (sic!) of Nāgesa comments directly on the MBh.: lad uktan bhāsye 'eşd'sya yasaso maryād!'/asya pāņinen / esā kumārarūpā / maryādā paricchedaheturity arthah."
In view of the fact that Limaye in subsequent parts of his article not only refers to Pan. 2.1.13 an maryadābhividhyoh, but also himself uses the terms maryāda, i.e "exclusive limit" (a + x="up to and excluding X") and abhividhi, i.e. "inclusive limit" (a + x = "up to and including x"), the degree to which he has abridged the discussion in the MBh. on Pan 1.4.89 seems problematic. It will in any case, I think, be useful to add the following information for those not familiar with Patanjali's work:
a) The phrase at issue (ākumāram ...) is adduced as an example meant to substantiate
the objcction that Pāņ. 1.4.89 - one out of a series of sūtras in which the so-called karmapravacaniyas are taught - has to be reworded, i.e. that an maryādābhividhyoh should be taught in its stcad.
b) This objection is refuted by the argument. maryādāvacana ity eva siddham/esåsya
yasaso maryādā/, "(such a rcwording is not necessary; the formation of phrases such as akumāram yasah paninch) correctly results already from the sutra (as it has been worded by Panini himself): (what is mcant by phrases like this is that this (i.e. what is depoted by the word govcmed by the proposition a) forms the limit of his fame".
c) This latter statement on its part is explained by Kaiyata as follows:' vacanagrahana
syedam prayojanam avāntarabhedapariharcņa paricchedahetumatram maryādā yathā

Page #2

Panini's Fame in Patanjali's View
469
grhyeta II, "the purpose of using the expression 'expressing" is that maryada should be taken to mean 'cause of limitation as such' (ie, in a general sense) (i.e.) by disregarding the subdivision (between exclusive' and 'inclusive limit'].'"
Whether Patanjali's solution of the problem posed by Pān. 1.4.89 is acceptable, that is to say, whether Pānini should really be assumed to have—and with reference to one and the same preposition at that - at one point distinguished maryādā from abhividhi and, at others, used maryada as a generic term" for both, is a question which I don't want to address myself to at present. What, however, is important for the question at issue here is that in the phrase akumaram yaśaḥ pāņinch the "boys" or "children" are according to Patanjali and others quite evidently included in the sphere of the extension of Pāņini's fame: What is meant by this phrase is that even children have heard his name and of his outstanding achievements in grammar.
In addition to Kaiyața and Nāgesa Limaye could have also quoted, or at least also referred 10. Annambhasta and Sivarāmendrasarasvati;" for both of them equally confirm the reading ākumăram as also the interpretation of this pharase. Particularly noteworthy is among others Annambhatta's remark on kumāran (of Kaiyata's paraphrase kumaran api yasah praptam quoted by Limaye), viz." tātparyakathanam etat / 'paficamy aparparibhiḥ' (2.3.11) iti palicamyantasya kumāraßabdasya 'an maryādābhividhyoh' (2.1.13) ity avyayibhāvapakse
Ikumăram' iti rūpam : Indeed, to render akumāram by the plural (boys" or "children") instead of a singular is not only legitimate, but also fully meets the intention of Patanjali.
Similarly one wonders whether the phrase as found in the MBh. is not perhaps secondarily transmitted also in other works of the Paninfyan tradition, or even outside of it in other systems of grammar, secondary transmission is after all important for all problems of textual criticism. Although I have not been able to carry out a systematic and comprehensive search, I may be so bold as to contend that significantly, in most cases one looks for it in vain. One exception is Purusottamadeva who however in his Bhāşāvrtti on Pan. 1.4.89 replaces the phrase in question by akumāram yasas tava.
2. Another exception is, as has already been observed by Limaye himself, the Kasika on this Sūtra of Pan.'s from which he quotes that part which immediately follows upon the mere paraphrase of the sutra, viz.: avadhir maryadă / vacanaSabdions abhividhir api grhyate / pătaliputrad vrsto devah/akumāram yasah/å såmkāsyåt/& mathurdyan / Limaye then adds the following remarks: "Thc cxamplc akumaram yaśaḥ påņine” is merely taken down (sic!) form the MBh., and left unexplained. Pataliputra, Samkāsya, and Mathură are all placenames. Naturally I began to wonder whether kumara in that context might not be corrupt for kumari, which also must (sic!) have been a place-name. If this surmise is right, the reading of the MBh. ought to have originally been akumari (an adverbal compound) where kumāri refers to Kanyākumāri or modem Cape Camorin (sic!)."

Page #3

470
A. Wezler
Now, this is only part of the truth, to put it politely. As the first example (padaliputrid vrsto devah) is found alrcady in the MBh., viz. III 192.10 (on Pan 6.4.22), there can hardly be any doubt that it has likewise been taken over from it by Jayaditya, especially as it is also adduced in the Vrtti on Candrasūtra 2.1.82." And Samkåśya and Mathură are not just also placenames, but names of places which are among others relatively often mentioned already by Patañjali himself," it is hence more than likely that the last two examples of the Kafikā are, directly or indirecuy, inspired by the MBh., i.e. simply modelled on a pataliputráli
That is to say the context--which plays such a fatal role in Limaye's argument—is first of all the result of assembling examples ultimately either taken from the MBh. or suggested by it. The question of their sequence apart, what one feels surprised at is that after akumaran yasah panineh two more examples are given, to the latter of which visto devah should be added as has been stated both by Haradatta and Jinendrabuddhi. If one starts from the assumption, a little audaciousthough it is in view of the absence of a really critical edition of the Kašikā, that both the latter examples form an original part of the text of the commentary on Pån. 1.4.89, a plausiblc explanation for the fact that they, too, are adduced could be that given by Jinendrabuddhi, albeit with reference to the first and last example only, viz. that in one case the preposition à means, or indicales, "up to and excluding" (varjanakriyājanitam avadhyavadhimadbhavalaksanam sambandham an dyotayati) and in the other "up to and including" (vyāptikriyājanitam)." But the main reason seems to be the wish to add to the avyayibhāva compounds an equal number of prepositional phrases.
However that may be, the context of the Kasikà does not by any means allow to draw the conclusion that in the sccond example again only a place-name is to be expected, and hence acceptable in terms of tcxtual criticism. For even with reference to the Kasikā itself there is no reason whatsoever that a series of four examples has to be parallel to such an extent that in all of them only placc-names are used. After all it cannot be denied that, the problematic ā sākāsyat apart, the first and last example, on the one hand, and the second, on the other, refer to entirely different facts, viz. raining and a person's fame. The assumption that the reading akumăram of thc Käsikā, which is for all that we know the onlyone attested in it, is corrupt is therefore nothing but purcly arbitrary. But unfortunately Limaye does not stop here, but jumps to much more far-reaching conclusions, for he infers, as we have seen, that the reading of the MBh. (on Pån. 1.4.89) "ought to have originally been kuman", but does noi dcem it necessary to enlighten his poor readers why an inference drawn from a particular 'context' of the Kasika that concems only a Kasikā reading warrants the assumption that it is valid also for the original source, i.c. the MBh., in spite of the fact that the context there is entirely different.
3. However, cven if it is admillcd that it is in fact possible that the character of being corrupt of a panicular reading becomes evident only by its being secondarily placed in a different, but revealing context of later tradition, onc cannot, of course, ignore the testimony of the transmission of the original source. This has also been realized by Limaye, for he continues:

Page #4

Panini's Fame in Patanjali's View
471
"Kielhom records no variant, e.g. Akumári for akumaran. "Yet he is by no means at his wit's end, but tries to clear away this obstacle by arguing in the following manner: "Although the maxim 'the correct need not be the original' is generally true, sometimes corruptions do creep in texts, handed down through oral tradition from the hoary past." He then quotes Vāk yapadiya 2.482, i.e. refers to a report according to which the South Indians maintained and retained the true text" of the MBh., "in a single manuscript". What Limaye says next is: "It stands to reason that instead of Panini's fame being extended up to even children, it should extend as far as Cape Camorin, the southemmost tip of India, from Salātura" ... "Later on, India was described as having extended 'from the Himalayas to Cape Camorin', a phrase, which, as I shall presently show, is found in the Sabarabhāşya on Jaimini's Sūtras and in the Nyāyamañjari of Jayantabhatça."
Since Limaye mentions it in a concessive clause, I am not sure that he has really understood the 'maxin' he quotes. But what he ultimately must have had in mind is the rule of thumb of textual criticism that a reading which is grammatically, etc., correct, intelligible and meaningful in its context, need not for these reasons alone also be the original one, i.e. ought to be preferred to another reading which is deficient in these or one of these regards. The proposition that texts, and not only orally transmitted ones and not only extraordinarily old ones, suffer various kinds of corruptions is similarly not only true, but a truism. But just as this latter observation does not, of course, justify suspecting each and every word, or any word, of a text to be corrupt, so too the 'maxim' cannot simply be reversed so as to teach that every reading which is correct in the sense explained in the foregoing) is therefore to be suspected of not being original!
And Bharthari's testimony is of no help either in this regard; for even if it is correct and its interpretation should be regarded as clear, it does not do more than specify one of the many rcasons for the well-known and certainly evident fact that Patanjali's MBh. has not come down to us in its original form, that is to say, that it contains corrupt readings, later additions, etc. But again this undoubtedly true observation cannot by any means be considered as justifying an approach to the transmitted text like that of Limaye. If we were to tolerate brcaking such a hole in the well-founded rampant of philological methods, we could equally well raze it to the ground once and for all and start rewriting texts like the MBh. just as we fancy them to have been originally. I do not, of course, want to intimate that the fact that Kielhom docs not record any variant reading is a guarantee of akumaran being necessarily corrcct: but the 'rcasons' adduced by Limaye (so far) are certainly not even sufficient to cast doubt on it. And, to be sure, the possibility that a new critical cdition of the MBh.” might altcr thc picture in this case, would be but mcre speculation that just should not be used as an argument.
4. In view of the nature of Limaye's arguments as quoted by me in the foregoing it docsn't come as a surprise that hc pcrsues his aim further by trying to accumulate circumstantial cvidence meant to show that Patanjali could have known Cape Comorin and

Page #5

472
A. Wezler
its earlier Sanskrit name kumar. He admits that the name is not attested in Vedic texts, but finds it, though in the plural, at Mahabharata (Poona ed.) 3.86.11. He then returns to the MBH., i.e. draws attention to the fact that Patanjali mentions, in the context of teaching certain grammatical formations, names of regions (janapadas) in South India such as panda, coda and kerala. What Limaye obviousy wants to say is that since Patanjali demonstrably knows these names, we are justified in assuming that he also knew the name kumari. Now, one could meet Limaye halfway and argumenti causa grant that this name was indeed known to Patanjali. Nevertheless one would still have to ask: So what? There is no modal logic according to which one could derive a proposition 'x is.real' from the proposition 'x is possible'!
Limaye's true motive becomes apparent when he, after quoting Raghuvamsa 4.20, adds the following remarks: "Here Kalidasa seems to follow the current reading akumaram of Patanjali. If we'read ākumari here also, it gives a good sense; unfortunately there is no variant ākumāri as in the MBh. His frankness, even if it is not deliberate, is disarming: on the other hand one cannot but gather the firm impression that his main 'argument is simply that he wants Patanjali, and Kalidasa, and probably also Medhatithi, to have conceived of Pāṇini's or Raghu's fame exclusively in terms of its extension up to Cape Comorin, and that this wish is quite clearly caused by nothing else than the 'context of the Kasika on Pan. 1.4.89'. Indeed here the wish is father to the thought!
The 'evidence of the Sabarabhāşya and some other Mimāmsă texts drawn upon by Limaye is such that the existence of the idiom, or saying, I himavara i ca kumăríbhyah is proved beyond doubt. But firstly I don't know of anybody who would wish to deny this fact; secondly this idiom does not mean “from Himalayas to Cape Camorin", but "up to the Himalaya and up to Cape Comorin", i.e. it cannot but have been uttered by a person who lived somewhere in between these two geographical points and from this point looks towards the North, on the one hand, and then towards the South, on the other, and, thirdly, it is used in thc Mimāmsā texts with rcfcrence to the area of usage of a particular Sanskrit word (viz. caru).
This latter observation is something Limaye could even have exploited for his own purpose: he could have argued that the geographical area limited and defined by the two boundaries 'Himalaya' and 'Kumăryah' is identical with the Sanskrit speaking area; and as the Astådhyayi deals with this language, there is some likelihood that the fame of its author has also been regarded as extending over this whole arca.
5. Limaye's causc has been defended by M.A. Mchendale in the first part of his "Mahābhārata Studies I". Or to be more precise-bccausc at that time nobody had already criticized Limayche cmphatically agrecs with him in that he stars his anicic by saying " ... Acharya Shri V.P.Limayc rightly draws attention to the fact theat ākumāram ... cannot mean 'uplo children, but that kumūra must refer to some place-name ("uplo kumāra country')." This in

Page #6

Pāņini's Fame in Patalijali's View
473
fact is not really an exact rendering of what Limaye has actually said: avoiding all trivial details let us see what Mchendale on his part considers as evidence supporting Limaye's argument. It is perhaps possible", he states, “lo say that the use of the expression akumāram itself was the usual way, at least in epic times, for conveying the sense of long distances. This becomes clear from the following few passages in the Mahābhārata." Subsequently he quotes and discusses three verses, viz. 2.43.14, 8.54.18 and 3.26.27. However, his interpretation is not only far from convincing, but also quite evidenty a highly forced one. It will, I think, suffice to show this in just the first case, viz, 2.43.14:
părthān sumanaso drstva parthivāmś ca vasānugān/ kitsnam căpi hitam loka akum åram kurūdvaha ll.
Mehcndale's comment on this verse reads thus:"Duryodhana began to become pale because, firstly, he saw the Pandavas well-pleased, secondly, the kings, assembled there, were obedient to the Pandavas, and, thirdly, the whole world was well disposed towards them. In order to convey the very wide extent of the world (lokam), which in the present context would mean the Bhāratavarşa, the author has used the expression akumāram whch must mean 'as far as the Kumara (country)'. It is most unlikely that Akumāram here means 'down to the children' because Duryodhana could have impossibly noticed children in the gathering that had come together for the Rajasūya and hence could say that even children were welldisposed to the Pandavas. Moreover Duryodhana is not particularly likely to be jealous of the Pandavas on secing children favourable to them, but certainly on noticing that the people upto the (very distant) land of Kumara were so disposed towards the Pandavas."
This interpretation docs not stand a critical examination for the following reasons: It is by no means certain that this verse refers at all, or only, to the "gathering that had come together for the Rājasūya". Most of the preceding verses of this adhyāya are devoted to the description of Duryodhana's falling a prey to the tricks of the magnificent sabha built by Maya for Yudhisthira; they are followed by a number of verscs (including 14) in which the jealousy of Duryodhana, and the feeling of depression resulting from it, is described, and this emotion is stated not to arise from the sight of the sacrificial gathering, but in the words of the Epic poet-prekşya tam adbhulam rddhim(12c where tām refers to the sabha), pandavasripraptasya (Duryodhanasya) (13a), mahimånam param cāpi pandavānām (15a, also to be construed with distvā of 14), sa tu gacchann ekāgrah sabhām anucintayan / Sriyan ca tăm anupamām dharmarajasya dhimatah // (16). There is hence no reason whatsoever not to take loka, of 2.23.14, to have the meaning "people" or "subjects": The support of other kings, as well as the popularity which Yudhişhira enjoys even with children or youngsters—and not only with grown-up pcople-is evidently considered here to be a part of his fri, and hence it forms another most plausible object of Duryodhana's envy.

Page #7

474
A. Wezler
6. In reality the passages from the Mahābhārata pointed out by Mehendale are, on the contrary, clear and excellent evidence of the fact that there is a Skt. avyayıbhāva compound akumāram meaning "up to boys/children", and that it is comparatively old. That is to say, quite the reverse of what Mehendale and Limaye say is true. The Mahābhārata confirms the MBh. on Pāņ. 1.4.89 and vice versa!
All that is necessary is not to deliberately close one's eyes, and thereafter even keep them tighuy closed, to the fact that in ancient India there existed side by side—though they may very well have originated in different points of time-two different conceptions of the extension of fame or a particular kind of knowledge, a horizontal one and a vertical one, so to say. According to the first it is the size of the geographical area which counts, the distance covered by a name or a news travelling from one person to another. The second is based on an aspect of fame, or a kind of knowledge, which one can intuitively perceive to be no less plausible, viz. that of the type of people to which it extends: the greatness of somebody's fame or the banality of a particular kind of knowledge, etc., can equally well be emphasized by stating that it extends to such kinds of people who are either by their age, and hence lack of any erudition, or by their social rank, and/or dull-wittedness, or by their sex, not to be expected to know this person or are rather renowned for their utter ignorance. It is therefore only too understandable that expressions like akumaram imply the notion "even" -as is also made clear e.g. by Kaiyata and Mallinātha by adding api in their respective paraphrases.
The simple truth is that there is a second strand in Sanskrit tradition, viz. the one I have just outlined, and that Limaye, and following him Mehendale, have ignored it much to their disadvantage. There is in fact no dearth of examples although expectedly not all of them are listed in the dictionaries, not to speak of a complete inventory of their occurrences. Suffice it to refer to the expressions ägopalam "down to (the) cowherds (s)", avigopalam, "down to (the) shepherds and cowherds", ābālam "down to children"," abalagopālam "down to children and cowherds etc., etc., I remember to have come across compounds like these, and similar ones, especially in philosophical texts, but I did not note them down nor their references. However, I don't think that this affects my argument as most of my readers will, I trust, have come across similar instances. In any case, there cannot be the least doubt that this 'second strand', as I have called it, does exist.
Since it can be traced back to the Mahābhārata, Patanjali's akumārap yaśaḥ pāņinen is unobjectionable also in terms of chronology: it is one of the earliest examples available for a tradition which was alive I don't know for how many centuries, but certainly for quite a long time, and it quite evidently means exactly what Kaiyata etc. take it to mean, viz. that "Panini's fame extends even to boys/children."
7. Now this is clearly meant to characterize his fame as extraordinary in that it presupposes, as has just been indicated, the idea that kumāras are rather not to be expected to know the author of the Aşlādhyāyi. It is preciscly this presupposition which has most probably created

Page #8

Panini's Fame in Patanjali's View
475
a sceling of uncasiness among later inheritors of the Mahābhāsya, and not only Vaiyak aranas. For, it is well-known that when Sanskrit did not any longer represent the mother, or rather father tongue of twice-bom children, the importance of grammar, i.e. systematic language teaching with the help of grammar, grew correspondingly. Not only was the function of the study of grammar radically changed from thc thcory of a fully known language to a means of acquiring linguistic competence in Sanskrit, but the place it held in the traditional
syllabus' had also to be revised: $abdānusasana had to be shiftcd rather to the beginning of education. It is true that the Aştādhyāyi is not the obvious choice as a means for language teaching, but there is nevertheless a great likclihood that the name of its author became known to children who were still busy lcaming Sanskrit albeit with the help of other teaching aids.
Yet, as far as Patanjali and his own times are conccmcd, there is clear evidence that the situation was still a different one: a Sista uses "correct words even without having studied grammar", as has been pointed out by P. Thicme," "for his is a favour of fate or a particular nature': daivānugrahaḥ svabhāvo vā". On the other hand, Patanjali is not at all prone to describe the study of grammar in his times as idcal; in a famous passage of the Paspasāhnika he complains about the brahmanical students' or his days rejcction of the study of grammar as being anarthaka." It is to be admitted that what he says by way of sketching the ideal background against which this lack of thirst for knowledge, or this neglect of duty, stands out as a problematic, nay deplorable decline, viz. that: purakalpa elad asit / saskārotarakālam brāhmană vyākaranam smadhiyate that this his statement seems to contradict my own remark about the place of the study of grammar in the 'syllabus'. But, firsty, what I had in mind, was, of course, the situation in Patanjali's own times, and, secondly, it is evident that although he uses the same expression vyāk arana with reference to both periods, the purākalpa as also his own times, it is phonetics or rather instruction in the correct pronunciation, that is referred to in the first case," and grammar as Sabdānusasana in the second; and what matters for the problem under discussion is that the students of Patanjali's times are said by him to exhibit this wrong and stupid attitude towards vyákarana "after having studied the Veda". Hence they cannot certainly have been still in their infancy.
On the other hand the question arises precisely which age group is referred to by kumara The MBh itself does not contain a definition, nor any indication which might help to answer this question, and definitions found in other texts, or other kinds of texts, are of litle relevance for the MBh. It will, I think, hardly be possible with reference to the MBh. to go beyond Thieme's gcncral remark that the meaning "boy, lad" and "youth" is "the common one in the older language". Yet this is clearly sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the expression includes that age-group which Patanjali most probably had in mind when he stated that Pānini's famc extended even to them, namely boys who have not yet undergone the upunayana ceremony, or slightly older ones who are still busy leaming the Veda by hcar.
Yet, not only the change in the educational system secms to have excrcised some influence on the reception of Palanjali's statement about the range of Panini's famc-of

Page #9

476
A. Wezler
which I have stated above (end of § 1) that the cases in which the phrase akumāram yaśaḥ panineḥ occurs are significantly very rare. It is possible, if not probable, that semantics also had a part in it. For Thieme rightly adds that the common meaning which kumara has in the older language "has been replaced, in classical Sanskrit, by the meaning 'prince'." It is perhaps due to this semantical development that Bhattojidikṣita gives in his Sabdakaustubha" on Pan. 1.4.89 amukteḥ samsaraḥ and a balebhyo haribhaktiḥ as examples; but Purusottamadeva's ākumāram yasas tava (Bhāṣāvṛtu on 1.4.89) already quoted above may have been provoked directly or indirectly by the 'educational reform'.
Today, i.e. approximately two and a half millennia after the time of Panini, Patanjali would have to make a different statement: For today the ingenious author of the Aṣṭādhyāyi is known, and renowned, far beyond the geographical area the boundaries of which are formed by the Himalaya in the North and Cape Comorin in the South; most unfortunately however his fame does not any longer extend even to children, not even in India herself, I am afraid. But this is clearly not Panini's fault
NOTES
1. Viz. Nos. LVIII and LIX (for the years 1977 and 1978), Poona 1978.
2. L.c., pp. 727-732.
3. L.c., pp. 727.
4. In the original this and the subsequent quotations are printed in Devanagari.
5. MBh. (ed. Kielhorn) 1 347.23-24; note that Kaiyata in his Pradipa (NSP-ed. II 294 b 11) speaks of a "värttika" herc, viz. with reference to an maryadabhividhyoḥ (also found and marked as a vārttika in this edition), but that Kielhor did not recognize it or know of it.
6. MBh. I 347.24-25.
7. II 294 b 20-22.
8. Cf. H. Scharfe, "vacana 'Numerus' bei Panini ?", (Kuhns) Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung..., 79 (1965). pp. 239-46.
9. Cf. also Nāgesa's Uddyota (NSP-ed.) II 294 b 23-25: a vantaret: maryadavišeşa evabhividhiḥ /maryādaiva yadā kārycṇa yujyate tadabhividhiḥ, yadā tu na tada maryadeti višeṣāvivakṣaṇād iti bhavaḥ //
10. Cf. Pan. 3.3.136 and 8.1.15!
11. Cf. Bṛhacchabdendusekhara (ed. ŚriSitaramasastri, Varanasi 1960), p. 912: vacanagraha nad iti: ayam bhavaḥ - maryadeti Sabda ucyate yasmin sütre tat maryādāvacanam; an maryädäbhividhyor' iti sūtram, tatra ya än ity arthaḥ/; cf. also footnote 4 on p. 294 of the NSPcdition: prayojana miti/maryädäyä vacanam yaträrthayugale tad maryadavacanam iti bahuvrihiņā 'än maryadabhividhyoḥ'ititisütropättärthyayugalasyaiva grahanam laksyanurodhād iti tattvam //.
12. Mahābhāṣya Pradipa Vyakhyānāni IV. Adhyāya 1 Pada 2-4. ed. M.S. Narasimhacharya, Pondichery 1977.
13. Quoted from the edition mentioned in note 12, p. 349. 20-21.
14. L.c., p. 272.
15. Other editions read grahanad. In quoting from Limaye I have standardized the sandhi.

Page #10

Panini's Fame in Patanjali's View
16. On the relation between the Candravyakarana and the Käsikä, as also between the Candrasutra and the Vṛtu, sec now Th. Oberlies, Studie zum Candravyakarana. Eine kritische Bearbeitung von Candra IV. 4.52-148 und V.2, Stuttgart 1989. 17. sāmkasya 455.12/17/24; 456.5/5
297.24
mathurā
I.
II.
1.
II.
III.
8.12; 19.5/6; 144.11; 192.11; 244.19;
205.7/7
299.3.
18. Cf. also II 160.25: yo'yam adhva gantavya ā pataliputräd etasmin kūpo bhavisyati/.
pajaliputra
144.11; 192.12; 154.19; 380.19; 455.10/22;
114.12; 160.25/25; 162.7/11; 311.23/25; 312.2
I.
II.
III.
477
192.12 (a pataliputrad vṛṣio deva (it); 299.3; 417.9.
19. See also what Jinendrabuddhi says immediately afterwards, viz.: kaḥ punar varjanasya maryādāyāš ca višeṣaḥ, yena purvasütre (i.e. 1.4.89) varjanan abhidhaycha maryādāgrahanam karoti? ayam asti višeṣaḥ-varjane hi tatparityägenänyaira samanyena varṣaṇādina sambandho gamyate, yatha a trigantebhyo vrsto deva iti; atra hi yasyam diši vyavasthito vaktedam vakyam prayunkte, tasyam disi yo deso yas tathanyāsu diksu tatra sarvatraiva trigartan varjayitva vrsta iti gamyate/maryādāyām tv idam vakyam prayunkte-a pataliputräd visto deva iti, tatsambandhinyäm eva diši yo vyavasthito deŝas tasya deŝasya varsanena sambandhaḥ pratiyata ity eşa višeṣaḥ/.
20. Which reads thus:
yaḥ patanjalisisycbhyo bhrasto vyakaraṇāgamaḥ / kāle sa dākṣinātycṣu granthamatre vyavasthitaḥ //.
21. L.c., p. 728.
22. Kiclhorn's edition is based on a small number of selected MSS. only. On the text history of the MBh. scc J. Bronkhorst, Three Problems Pertaining to the Mahabhaṣya, Poona 1987, pp. 1442 (where further biographical references are given).
23. As for the mantra which Limaye quotes from TaiA 10.1.7 (= Mahānārāyaṇa Up. 3.12 = 82) (katyāyanaya vidmahe kanyakumari (kumaryai) dhimahi/tan no durgiḥ (durga) pracodayāt), it is highly questionable whether kanya can be regarded as a vocative fonned in analogy to amba. And kanyakumari can because of the wider context hardly be taken not to mean "la jeune fille" as it is rendered by J. Varenne, La Maha Narayana Upanisad..., Paris 1960, p. 33. 24. L.c., p. 729.
25. Limaye's contention that "Mallinatha... is also at pains in explaining akumara" equally fails to pass critical examination. Mallinatha simply offers two alternative interpretations of the compound ākumārakathodghatam, and most probably following an older traduition at that (cf. e.g. Hemadri's cominentary on this verse); and he simply mentions a variant reading which he also explains in its turn!
26. From whose Bhasya on Manu 1.1 he quotes on p. 729.
27. Note that Limaye's emendation in the passage quoted by him from Jayanta's Nyāyamanjari, viz. that one should read a himavataḥ instead of a hi sarvata, has been strikingly confirmed by the new and critical edition prepared by Pandit K.S. Varadacharya, Mysore 1983 (sce part 2, p. 257)!

Page #11
478 A. Wezler 28. ABORI LXV (1984), pp. 245-247. 29. Although more can be found already with the help of the Praljka-Index (cf. vol. I p. 297). 30. Note that the Pali tcxts in which the compound occurs are markedly younger, cf. Critical Pali Dictionary s.v, akomaram. 31. On agopala (dvijalayah) (MBharata 2 App. 4, 19 post.)--a passage which, by the way, strikingly confirms my own interpretation of MBharata 2.43.14--see J. Wackernagel u. A. Debrunner, Aluindische Grammatik II, I, Gorlingen 1957, p. 312. akumarah of Moharata 8.30.12, which Mehendale (1.c., p. 246 fn. 6) styles as a "very peculiar expression", could similarly be an adjectival compound, i.e. mean "I down to the boy", i.e. "down to the time when I was a boy" = "from my childhood". 32. Cf. also agopalavipalebhyah Mahabharata 2.58.35 etc. (sec Pratika-Index I p. 303). 33. Yogavasistha 2.18.58. 34. Mallisena's Syadvadamanjari on verse 15 (ed. A.B. Dhruva, Bombay 1933, p. 100) 35. "The Interpretation of the learned in: Felicitation Volumc presenied to S.K. Belvalkar, Benares 1957, pp. 47-62 = Kleine Schriften, ed. G. Buddruss, Wiesbaden 1971, pp. 596-611; the reference is to p. 61 = 610. 36. Quoted from MBh. II 174.13. 37. Cf. MBh. I 5.5-11. 38. Cf. MBh. 15.7-8: tebhyas latra sthanakarananupradanajncbhyo vaidikah Sabda upadisyantel; cf. also Bharthari's remark (Mahabhasyadipika of Bhartzhari, Fasc. IV: Ahnika I, ed. by J. Bronkhorst, Poona 1987, p. 13): purakalpe schanakaranadin vyakaranad eva pratipadyatel. 39. The reference is to his article "Jungfrauengaite". Sanskrit kaumarah patih..." in: (Kuhns) Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung 78 (1983), p. 161 = Kleine Schriften (cf. note 35), P. 426. 40. L.c., ibidem. 41. Chss-ed., Pl. 2, p. 180.