Astadhyayi As A Case In Textual Criticism

SR No.: 269570
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar
Total Pages: 10
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 885 KB

Page 9

AKLUJKAR THE ASTADHYAYI AS A CASE IN TEXTUAL CRITICISM
whereas it specifically comments on maye of the almost immediately following (4.4.138) rule with the remark maya iti mayaḍ-artho lakṣyate, it provides no similar gloss on matau; in fact, it contains no indication of matau, as it reads only matv-arthe. Nor is it likely that the authors of the Käsikà read matau in 4.4.136, but tried to suppress the problem such a reading presents, for in a later rule (5.2.59), the Käsikä does contain the remark matav iti matv-artha ucyate. Not providing such explanation for an earlier rule like 4.4.136 seems especially improbable. Thus, there is enough evidence to establish that matau ca was originally and up to the time of the Käsikä25 matv-arthe ca. Now, the question is: how could matv-arthe have changed to matau? It is not a change of the common transcriptional type. 26 I think the change has come about through a phenomenon described by one Sanskrit author as väsitantah-karanair lekhakais tatha likhitam. In matau bahv-aco 'n-ajiradinām (6.3.119), the form matau occurs appropriately. Under its influence, 27 first the matv-arthe of 5.2.59 seems to have been changed by scribes to matau (see note 25 above).28 Then the reading matv-arthe of 4.4.136 seems to have undergone a change to matau under the influence of both 6.3.119 and 5.2.59, or either.
7.1
Regarding 3.3.172, śaki lin ca, again, one can rationalize the use of saki for saky-arthe. One may argue, for example, as follows: P twice (6.1.81, 7.3.68) uses the expression sakyarthe meaning in the sense" is possible". Perhaps he did not wish to use a confusingly similar expression śaky-arthe meaning in the sense of [the root] sak', 'in the sense is capable". Also, the immediate context (3.3.169-174) of 3.3,172 is sufficient to indicate that saki signifies an upadhi, not an upapada. A literal interpretation of the rule when sak is upapada, lin also is used' would not have made sense anyway, as sak is not an upapada but a verbal root to which suffixes are added and as the occasion evidently was not one of deriving the optative forms of sak which have been provided for elsewhere.
7.2
However, this line of reasoning leaves P guilty of three things:
(a) He has used the locative of a technical element in a nontechnical sense, contrary to his usual procedure, (b) has relied upon contextual implication, and (c) has violated his own practice of adding artha.
25. On the other hand, P 5.2.59 (see Note 21 above) seems to have read matyarthe for matau only until the time of Patanjali.
26. I would account for maye of P 4.4.138, where one expects mayaḍarthe or mayarthe, in essentially the same manner as one outlined in the following lines.
27. The occurrence of matol in 4.2.72, 4.4.125, 5.3.65, 6.2.219 and 8.2.9 could have indirectly reinforced a form of matu in another case, namely the locative.
28. Note that matau occurs in the initial position in the rules as matv-arthe
does.