________________
30)
Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society 3 (1993)
A. Werler, on a Prose Passage in the Yuktidipika
301
It is most important to note this because among the various func tions of the suffix cha (- ha) which Pāņini distinguishes there are two which have to be considered with regard to these designations, viz. firstly, in accordance with stra 5.2.59, that of the suffix mat which in 5.2.91 is taught to be fad asydstyasminn iti-or, secondly, in accordance with 4.3.87, that of a grantha that has been made having (X) as its subject' (arthikthy krte granthe), examples being, according to 4.3.88, Sibu kraniya, 'a grantha dealing with the crying of a child, yamasabhlya, 'a grantha composed on Yama's assembly/hall'. Although these granthas are known only from the Asfadhyay and it is therefore not even possible to exactly determine the meaning of grantha" as used in 4.3.87, the function as such of the suffix is clear and evidently different from that which it has when added in accordance with Panini 5.2.59, and, as Katyayana adels," not only to nominal stems, i.e. in order to form designations of shiktas and sdmans like eg. acchavaklyam, '(the sūkta) which contains the words acchdwika" or yājridyajrilyam,' (the saman) which contains (ie, begins with the) (the words) yana yajria (RV 1.168.1)'.
The situation becomes even more complicated insofar as according in Pan. 5.2.60 luk is substituted instead of cha, i.e.ya- becomes invisille, 'when names of an adhya or an anuvaka are formed'. For are not the designations attested in medical texts, at least the majority of
them," names of adlydyas, and should they not hence rather lack the secondary suffix -ya-? Has therefore the conclusion to be drawn that these designations cannot be regarded as derivationally identical with those taught by Panini in his sūtra 5.2.592
Certainly not, because already the juxtaposition of the expressions adhyaya and anuväka in Pan. 5.2.60 suggests that what Panini had in view was not a 'lesson' in just any kind of text, but adhydya as used to denote sections/chapters in Vedic, or perhaps even particular Vedic texts. In addition, the relative chronology of the Asfadhydyl and the Ayurvedic Samphitas-has, of course, also to be taken into account in this connection, i.e. the fact that the latter are not only in their present form- undoubtedly later than the former. And in view of both these reasons the most plausible explanation suggesting itself with regard to the discrepancy between Påņini and the evidence as found in the medical texts is that it is simply due to historical development: starting from secondary nouns like those referred to by Pāņini, this way of forming designations of sections of texts was extended to other cases, too - just like that taught in Pāņ. 4.3.871. — and this process, by no means without its parallels in the history of Old Indian, is perhaps even reflected in the Mahabhd.sya, i.e. by the fact that already Katyāyana thought it necessary to teach that the replacement of cha ( ya) by luk, according to Part 5.2.60, is only optional.
But it would still be possible to argue against the assumption that the use of such designations in Ayurvedic texts is but a continuation of a corresponding usage in Vedic, or late Vedic, Sanskrit by referring to the circumstance that these medical texts are most probably made up of various strata of different origin and age. There is indeed a great general likelihood that this is true, although unfortunately nobody has suc ceeded until now in demonstrating, not even with regard to just one of these texts, what are the strata that have in fact to be distinguished, and that the model of a compilation cannot also be applied. Nevertheless, the number of relevant secondary nouns is so large, and what is even more important their distribution so wide, that the possibility that all
17 J. WACKPRNACIPI, Altindische Grammatik, Bd.11.2: A. DEBRUNNER Mie Nominelle, Getingen 1954, pp. 436 (9268ba) and 438 (268be), respectively.
10. RÖM INCIK'S (Panini's Grammatik, repr. Hildesheim 1964) 'literarisches Er zeugnin' seems too narrow an equivalent; grantha can denote any fixed formulation from a single sentence up to a whole text. Of course, in view of adhiktya, it is not probable at all that sinple sentences are meant in this sutra, but the attribute literarisches' as well as the concept "Erreugniss' may easily lead to a misunderstanding
In the first vormika on Pan. 5.2.59 (Mahābhāsya 11 385.22) in explaining which Patanjali gives the famous aryavaniyam (d. Revedasarnhild - RV> 1.164) as an example.
is what is referred to RV Kläni 5.7.5? K. MYLIUS' article 'acchävāka, acchava kiya. Skine eines vedischen Opferpriesteramies', Golden Jubilee Volume, Vaidika San Sondhana Mandale, Poona 1981, pp. 177-184 does not throw light on this particular ques
In fact, I do not find a single exception in the material listed in the 'Appenda.
a. also the article of L. RENOU 'Les divisions dans les textes Sanskrits', Indo Iranian Journal 1.1952: 1-32.
Namely in the only wartlike on Pän. 5.2.60 (Mahabhäsya Il 386,16).
For the names like yvynjamaha- etc., however, see J. WACKERNAGE, Allindische Grammatik, Rd.11,1, Göttingen 1957, pp.3256. (5123a).