Amrita Collected Papers by A M Ghatage

SR No.: 006968
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Kasturbhai Lalbhai Smarak Nidhi Ahmedabad
Total Pages: 530
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 10 MB

Page 283

274
Amrita
original formulation which thus completely disappears leaving to trace behind. The puzzling systematic of Pāṇini is, in part at least, due to such rewritings of his text. Once they become the accepted text, the implication on which they are based become a part of the system without which it cannot be understood. In such cases, the only method available for a modern student of Pānini is to try to find out. relics or traces of the original state of affairs left over by oversight or neglect. Sometimes inherent probability or statistical evidence which was beyond the powers of the redactors does help. The thoroughness with which such changes are carried out by later writers on Pāṇini leaves only a marginal scope for such research. The results in this field can only be more or less probable. Any rigorous proof is out of question.
A good example of such a rewriting of a sūtra is found in P. vi.2.42 which is generally given as follows: kafi'I HERC-37C CIEG yrasal तैतिलकद्रूः पण्यकम्बलो दासीभाराणां च । In this form it contains six distinct words, the first of which consists of four compounds forming a song with a singular ending, followed by three independent compound words each in Nom. Sg. and ending with the word crir ending in Ger. pl. and the particle a. The original formulation of the sūtra is preserved in the महाभाष्य of पतञ्जलि which runs as कुरुगार्हपतरिक्तगुर्वसूतजरत्यश्लीलदृढरूपापारेवडवातैतिलकः. पण्यकम्बलोदासीभारादीनाfufa athy I. which itself is a modified form of the original which must have been without a fart after afastone and w'thout a Nom. Sg. 37 after your chien and ending in दासीभाराणाम्. Without such a supposition the remarks of पतञ्जलि which follow तत्तर्हि वक्तव्यम्। न वक्तव्यम् । योगविभागः करिष्यते । कुरुगार्हपतरिक्तगुर्वसूतजरत्यश्लीलदृढरूपा पारेवडवा तैतिलकद्रः पण्यकम्बल इति। ततो दासीभारणा । चेति । तत्र बहुवचननिर्देशाद्दासीभारादीनामिति विज्ञायते | makes no sense at all.
The reason given for the addition of 3fc after R is to include such words as defa: tarifa: arifa: 311919, 5h: in the scope of the rule which enjoins पूर्वपदप्रकृति- स्वरत्व. The initial impetus to cut the Sutra into separate forms of words was given by Patañjali as a suggestion to avoid the addition of the word off to the sūtra and yet leave scope for the inclusion of the additional words by making use of the device of taking the plural at the end as indicative of a Tu. This is one of the traditionally accepted devices for this purpose which does occur in other places as well. But the procedure of Mayr also needs the addition of a Nom. Sg. ending to quel chest and तैतिलकद्रू Neither पारेवडवा nor अश्लीलदृढरूपा require any phonetic change to be . taken as Nom. singulars, being feminine words ending in ā. Then why not carry the procedure a step further and separate असूतजरती and अश्लीलदृढरूंपा as independent words as well ? And this is precisely what the 2014 and 484329