Indian Antiquary Vol 16

SR No.: 032508
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: John Faithfull Fleet, Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 408
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 18 MB

Page 196

180
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
(JUNE, 1887.
Katyayana (Vol. I. p. 72). Påņini's one rule P. VI. 1, 32 : YHTET and 33 TRIFT would allow only for (according to P. I. 1, originally formed the one rule : dar14) 3 na, while from Katyayana's two rules भ्यस्तस्य च. That rule has been split in two by we also obtain para
Katyayana (Vol. III. p. 29), in order to account P. I. 4, 58 Tz: and 59 THT: Perutit by : arv ( TYT) for the forms originally formed the one rule 493 : grafora and T TCL P rurit, which has been split in two by Kåtgå- P. VI, 1,164 argarea and 165 Fahrt: originally yana (Vol. I. p. 341). To quote an example formed the one rule afar fact, so quoted given by Kaiyata, Pâņini's one rule would not in Vol. III. p. 116, 1. 13. The division of that allow us to account (by P. VI. 2,2) for the rule has been suggested by Patañjali (Vol. II. accent of prá' chúrya, because here pra would p. 253, 1.22), who by argaret (198) wishes not be termed Nipata. Kaiyata, who know the to account for the accent of words like Kasika, has the remark-TT SITE fa ürit Kaunjáyaná'. But for this new rule such uà TT TÊ U TI
I TT T T words, being formed with the suffix 44 ITT: UUTT T T TTT: 98 a . (P. IV. 1, 98), would be adyudatta by P. VI. YTT: Se rua.
1, 197, a rule which here would supersede the P. II. 1, 11 and 129799f T THET rule P. VI. 1, 163. originally formed the one rule
f
a re. P. VII. 3, 117 , 118 sirr, and 119 रसवः पञ्चम्या. The division of that rule into | अच्च के: originally formed the one rule इकुड्यामोरच two has been suggested by Patañjali (Vol. 1. 0, so quoted in Vol. I. p. 116, 1. 9, and Vol. p. 380), to make it quite clear that fear, as II. p. 404, 1.15. Kâtyâyana, after having in an Adhikara, is valid also in the following Vol. III. p. 342, 1. 10 divided that role into rules P. II. 1, 13, etc.; for, as Kaiyata observes, the two rules इकुयाम् and औवच घेः, in 1. 14 अन्यथहवास्योपयोग आइक्येत योगविभागे त्वधिकारो | proposes to divide the latter rule again into tua.
the two rules sita and 7 :, but in l. 22 he P.IV.3, 117 art and 118 Tranzit himself shows this second division to be anoriginally formed the one rule संज्ञायां कुलाला- necessary. (Compare also the Katika-Vritti दिभ्यो वुम्. The division of that rule has been on P. VII. 3, 119). Påņini's one rule would suggested by Katyayana (Vol. II. p. 317), to only permit the Locative cases air, it etc., enable us to account by the rule FETTE for not eat, T, etc. the words mákshika, sáragha, etc. (p. 316). The above are, in my opinion, all rules, in Kaiyata appends the note-संज्ञायां कुलालादिभ्यो the case of which Yoga-vibhaga can with युमिति सूत्रं विभक्तमित्यर्थः ।
certainty be proved to have taken place. It is P. V.1, 57 Ft THT TH and 58 PRAT: true, that according to Nagôjibhatta the two ara g originally formed the one rale rules P. VI. 2, 107 3 and 108 also, TRYTATOTT ,so quoted in Vol. originally were one rule, apparently because II. p. 343, 1. 13. The division of that rule has orgs A has been so quoted in Vol. III. not been actually proposed by either Katyayana p. 121, 1, 14 and p. 133, 1. 17; but I should or Patañjali, but it may justly be argued that not now venture to conclude from the fact that Kâtyâyana's Vart. 6 in Vol. II. p. 353 would two or more rules are quoted together, that have been superfluous, if to him the words they must necessarily have been regarded as TEET TATT had been a separate rule; and only one rule, unless indeed such conclusion Kaiyata and Nagôjibhatta are therefore in my could be supported by other arguments. No opinion quite right, when they say, the former less than eleven times we find in the Mahâbhâतदस्य परिमाणमिति योगविभागः कर्तव्य इत्युक्तं भवति, | shya the quotation अतो दीपों यभिसपिच (P. and the latter in the Laghusabdéndusekhara) | VII. 3, 101 and 102), and yet P. VII. 3, 101 STT T TT sa fa. I need and 102 undoubtedly are two separate rules, hardly add, that the very general rule of which the former has been quoted by itself
NT allows us to account for a number of four times, and the latter twice. Similarly words, which otherwise could not have been P. VI. 2, 143 and 144 have been quoted toexplained by Pâņini's rules.
gether eight times, although they are separate