Disclaimer: This translation does not guarantee complete accuracy, please confirm with the original page text.
## 86
## Sarvarthasiddhi
These opinions, which have been presented as forms of Siddhi, are not new. Because, as we will explain later, their Siddhi is also evident in Panini's grammar through alternatives. Therefore, the question arises: why did Acharya Pujyapada mention these opinions separately as those of these Acharyas, when Panini's grammar was available to him and these usages were found in it? The question is serious and it is possible that it may shed light on some historical facts in the future. For the time being, it appears to us that just as Rishi Panini mentioned the opinions found in the literature available until his time in his grammar, along with the names of their authors or by using terms like 'anyatar' etc., similarly, Acharya Pujyapada mentioned the opinions found in Jain literature available until his time in his Jainendra grammar, along with the names of their authors. The details of the opinions are as follows:
**Bhutbali:** The sutra that presents the opinion of Acharya Bhutbali is 'Ravabhatbaleh'. 3, 4, 831. According to Bhutbali's opinion, the 'kha' suffix is formed from the Dvigu compound ending in 'sama'. This is the meaning of this sutra. From this, the usage 'Vaisamin:' is established as an alternative to the usage 'Samik:'. Similarly, 'Ratryah: Sambarsarat'. 3, 4, 841 and 'Varshad-upac'. 3, 4, 85. These are two other sutras that present the alternative opinion of Acharya Bhutbali. The first sutra establishes usages like 'Dviraatrinah, Vayahinah and Dvisambatsarinah' etc., while the second sutra establishes usages like 'Dvivarshah' etc. These alternative functions have been considered in Jainendra grammar according to the opinion of Acharya Bhutbali.
Panini has also indicated these alternative functions, but he has not mentioned whose opinion these functions are based on. In place of these three sutras, Panini's 'Dvigo-rva 5, 1, 86', 'Ratryah: Sambatsaran-s 5, 1, 87', and 'Varshal-luk cha 5, 1, 881' come respectively.
**Jina-Acharya Shridatta:** The sutra that presents the opinion of Acharya Shridatta is 'Gane Shrivat-syastriyam. 1.4, 341'. According to Acharya Shridatta, the fifth case ending is formed due to Guna. However, this function does not occur in the feminine gender. This is the meaning of this sutra. According to this, the usage 'Manamathah' is established as an alternative to 'Jnanen Muktah' according to Acharya Shridatta's opinion. In its place, the sutra 'Vibhasha Gun-e'astriyam. 2, 3, 25.' is found in Panini's grammar.
**Yashobadra-Acharya:** The sutra that presents the opinion of Acharya Yashobadra is 'Krishimoojam Yashobadrasth. 2, 1, 991'. According to Acharya Yashobadra, the 'kyap' suffix is formed from the roots 'kri, vrisha and mrij'. Accordingly, the alternative usages 'Kutyam, Vridhyam and Mukhyam' are established. In its place, the two sutras 'Majevibhasha. 3, 1, 113.' and 'Vibhasha Krivrukshoh 3, 1, 120.' are found in Panini's grammar.
**Prabhavakha-Acharya:** The sutra that presents the opinion of Acharya Prabhachandra is 'Ravah Kriti Prabhavastha 4, 3, 1801'. When the word 'ratri' is a secondary word and the 'kridanta' is present, the 'mum' is added according to Prabhachandra's opinion. Accordingly, the alternative usage 'Ratricharah' is established. In its place, Panini's grammar has the sutra 'Rakati Vibhasha. 6, 3, 721'.
**Samantbhadra-Acharya:** The sutra that presents the four opinions of Acharya Samantbhadra is 'Chatustayam Samast-bhasya. 5, 4, 1401'. It is mentioned in this sutra that the previous four sutras have been said according to Acharya Samantbhadra's opinion. Those four are: 'Bhayoh Hah. 5, 4, 1361', 'Shachho'ti. 5, 4, 1371', 'Halo Yama Yami Kham. 5, 4, 1381', and 'Bharo Jh-ari Swe. 5, 4, 1391'. In their place, Panini's sutras are respectively: 'Jhayoh Ho'nyatarasyam. 8, 4, 621', 'Saro'ti 184, 631', 'Halo Yama Yami Lopah. 8, 4, 64', and 'Jharo Jh-ari Savarna. 8.4, 651'.