Astadhyayi As A Case In Textual Criticism

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar

Page 5

AKLUJKAR: THE AṢTĀDHYAYI AS A CASE IN TEXTUAL CRITICISM
3.4.96 vaito 'nyatra
4.2
6.4.119
7.2.5
7.3.103
7.4.52
8.2.81:
8.3.99
(b) 1.1.15
6.1.93:
6.3.112
7.3.71
8.2.45
8.3.20
8.4.28: (c) 3.4.93:
3.4.95
4.1.36
(d) 4.1.38 :
7.1.34:
7.2.107
(a) 3.4.79 6.4.67
kim-et-ti-avyaya-għad amv adravya-prakare ghv-asor ed dhav abhyasa-lopaś ca h-m-y-anta-kṣaṇa-svasa-jāgr-ni-sv-ed-itām bahu-vacane jhaly et
ha eti
era id bahu-vacane
(b) 4.4.108 (d) 7.1.84 7.3.118
eti sajyam aght of10
oto 'mśasoḥ
sahi-vahor od a-varnasya
otaḥ syani
od-itaś ca
oto gargyasya
upasargad anot-paraḥ11
eta ai
àta ai.
puta-krator ai ca12
manor au và
On the background of these sutras, the following sutras stand out as containing unexpected readings:
ata au nalaḥ
adasa au su-lopaś ca13
tita atmane-padanam ter e er lini
samanodare sayita o codattaḥ
diva aut
5
119 aud ac ca gheḥ14
10. Sutras 1.1.15 and 6.3.112 establish that is appended even in the nominative case and that it has not been introduced only for ease in inflection.
11. The Kasika reads upasargad bahulam. The reading in the Mahabhasya and BöHTLINGK's edition is as given here.
12. The form ais in 7.1.9 is due to the fact that a substitution for the whole grammatical element bhis is to be taught.
13. aut in 4.1.2. aus in 6.1.21 and aux in 7.1.18 are the result of special considerations. Hence they should be left out here.
14. The Bhasya seems to have read 7.3.116 to 119 (according to KIELHORN (1885: 192 and 1887: 180) 7.3.117 to 119) as one continuous sentence and then suggested yoga-vibhaga for it. In the Kasika, the yoga-vibhaga is accepted. Accordingly, aut is rule 7.3.118 for it and ac ca gheh 7.3.119.