Brief Account Of Different Dhatupatras

Author(s): G B Palsule
Publisher: G B Palsule

Page 5

G. B. PALSULES likely that the present dhatup. has undergone a subsequent revision and has received a considerable addition. This is particularly so in view of the fact that it contains a number of roots which are a creation of a later age and are missing even in the Sakatiyana dhatup, (e.g. Ichurd, manth, etc.) which usually follows J.
Kasakstana Dhatupatha.
This dhātuplitha is a recent discovery. The students of Sanskrit grammar already know one Kasakstana, references to whom or to whose work are found occasionally in the Sanskrit' grammatical literature. A few quotations from his work are found scattered in different Sanskrit works. 91 This is all that was so far known about Kasakrsna. This is the first time that a whole work going by his name has been discovered.
BRIEF ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENT DHATUPATHAS
It must, however, be stated at the outset that the present work cannot have come from this Kasakytsna known so far the disabdika Kačakrtsna, to use Vopadeva's term. He is usually supposed to be anterior to Panini, evidently owing to the association of his name with that of Apišali in the grammatical literature. But unlike Apisali he is not mentioned by Pinini in the Astadhyāyi and so some have disputed that claim. Anyway the work which we have now before us must be certainly a post-Paninian work since it uses all the twenty-one Anubandhas of Panini's dhătup, exactly in the same sense. It does not reject any of Pinini's Anubandhas nor does it add any. This single fact is enough to show that the author of the present ahitup, han drawn on Panini and consequently he must have come after Pannini. Tt cannot be ar pued that it is Pinini who borrowed from K akrsna since such a wholesale borrowing on the part of P is unthinkable. Besides, Patanjali (under P 7.1.18) expressly tells us that P does not make use of the Anubandas of his predecessors."
Further, there are other circumstances which would show that our work belongs to a still later date. Thus the set of meanings assigned to the roots here is almost the same as given by Bhimasena and so cannot be earlier than the begining of the Christian era, which is approximately the date of Bhimasena.
Coming to the arrangement of roots, It has striking resemblance with the traditional Kitantra dhatup. Lastly, many of the roots in this dhatup. like dhundh (1, 191) dast (X, 50), fist (X, 48) etc. seem to be of a very late origin. In fact this is the most inflated of the Dhätupathas. All these things would tend to show that the present dhatupōtha--at least in the form in which we have it now-is the product of a very late age and cannot have come from the pen of the ancient Kasakrtsna who in any ense was anterior to Patañjali. For all practical purposes the present dhatup. may be assigned to a period not earlier than 600 A.D.
It will be advisable to give here some aspects of the work in detail because, firstly, the work, which is a new discovery, has been printed for the first time and, secondly, the Kannada script is unfortunately retained in the printed edition.
48. Kalkreme-Sabda-Kalapa Dhidhah of Cannavirskavi, ed. by A. N. NARAKIA, pub. in the Sources of Indo-Aryan Lexicography Series by Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Poona, 1952 Cannavirskavi is only the name of the authour of the Kannad commentary which is also printed along with the text. The edition is in the Kannad characters in which both the Mss. on which the ed. is based, were written
49. MIMAMSAKA Mtihdas I, p. 79, has raised a subtle point by saying that the word Kasaktan as the name of a system of grammar presupposes (by P 42,112) K artani as the name of the author, and not Kaakana which, by P 42,114, would give the form Kalksniya as the name of the grammar. But since Kalakana also actually appears as the name of the grammarian, he concludes that the same author was sometimes referred by the name Kasaklana, and sometimes by Kaiaktsni. It seems, however, that it is not quite imperative to bring in Kasakstani. The form Kisakrlana (grammar) can be derived from the base. Kakakana (author) itself by resorting to abhedopacira, just Bhattoji does in the case of the word 'drirako (h m ) in the Kaumudi (under P IV, ill, 87). It is also worth considering whether on the basis of the Varttika
madheyasys wrddhafa vaktavy, the word Kilaksana (author) could not optiotionally cease to be technically called upddhe, in which case Kasakstana becomes as legitimate as Kisakaniya as denoting the work of Kasaktana.
50. The Kasakstana system of grammar is referred in the Bhagya (Vol. I, p. 12). From remarks like "trik Kaskady (Candravrtti 31,42) and 'trikash Kasakstanem (Kaid to P 5.1.23) it appears that Kiaksana's work consisted of three Adhylyasi also seems that he was the first to introduce the principle of brevity (laghava) in the construction of the grammatical rules, d. the oft-quoted statement "Kadakanan gurulaghavan (Kasikh to P 43.115; Comm. to SKBh. 4,3,246; Comm. to Sh. 3,1,182). In his comm. to Bhiaya under P 21.50 and 5,1.50 Kaiyata cites two rules of Kaiaketana. Kpirasimin (quoted by Sysna in the M. Dh.) in his comm. to P. Dh. II, says that the followers of Kisaktana favour the form duasta. Vopadeva (Kkd. 2) mentions Kinkana as one of the digabdikas'.
51. For a good collection of these se MINAMSAKA, Itha I p. 84.
52. CHATTERJI, Technique I, p. 2
53. This statement of Patanjali is, of course, true only to a certain extent. There are many anubandhas in the Panininn system which were used by hie predecessors for the identical purpose, see particularly in this respect Mangala Deva SHASTRE, The relation of Pesini's technical devices to his predecessors, Proceedings of the 4th Oriental Conference, Vol. II, pp. 69-472