Brief Account Of Different Dhatupatras

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

Page 7

G. B. PALSULE parallel anywhere. Some of these roots are added by extending the present sútras (Le new roots are added against an old meaning) while in the caso of many others new sutras (i.e. both roots and meanings) are framed. A good number of these are evidently meant to supply a verbal basis for certain derivatives which are supposed to be derived from them whilo a few are cases of error, pure and simple. The anubandhas, e.g. are erroneously taken as roots. Thus the root mim-r is separated into two roots mi and my, the comm. giving the two forms mayati and marti(?). The root o-vai is read as u vai with the forms quati and viyati. Even the preverbs are mistaken for roots. Thus ati- is given as a root with the meaning kramaNithaayon whereas really speaking atikramo-him.sayoh is the meaning of the root ap (which is here given as adi); sutra X, 175 reads as bhu klp ava Quakalpane where the first ava is really an erroneous repetition of the preverb GUG- (forming a part of the meaning) turned into a root.
If one ignores this mass of additional roots, then what remains is nothing but the Kt. Dh. There is a highly significant fact to be noted in this connection. The name of this dhatup. as it appears in the final colophon of the commentary is Kdiakstana-sabda-Kalapa. Now it will at once be recalled that Kalipa is also another name of Katantra. The commentator might have deliberately used this word to suggest that the dhatup, which he has commented upon is just a version of the Kalapa or the Katantra dhatup.
There is another aspect of this question. The commentary has quoted a number of sutras, evidently from the Kasakrana grammar, in the course of its explanations. On an examination of these sutras it is found that they betray a strong affinity with the Katantra grammar. Indeed a number of the sutras and technical terms are identical with those in Katantra." This shows that the whole system of the Kasakriana grammar is just another version of the Kätantra grammar.
BRIEP ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENT DHATUPATHAS
There are one or two peculiarities of this dhātup, which may best be mentioned here. Unlike other systems, five roots, viz, củ, tús, pus, mis and si are read with a short vowel, i.e. cus etc, and a special provision is made in the Satrapatha for their lengthening (cupider dirghah'). Sumi larly in the VI class roots pr my, dr and dhr are read as pri, mri, dri and dhri (the comm, gives only such forms as show-ris, priyate, priyah etc., forms with -- are not given). The Kātantra dhatupasha
Modern scholars headed by LIEBICH believe that what passes as the dhatup. of the Katantra school is really Candra dhatup. remodelled by Durga for the Katantra school. As we have already seen, LLEICH has published as an appendix to his ed. of the Kiralarahgini a dhatup.. reproduced from Tibetan sources, which he believes is the original dhatup. composed by Sarvavarman himself. However, even accepting that the current dhatup. is not the original dhātup. of Sa., the one published by LIEBICH cannot, on account of its numerous and important differences from Sarvavarman's grammar proper (i.e. the sutrap.), be that original one. This much I have already shown.
But did Sa, really write a dhātup.? We do not know whether Sarvavarman actually wrote a dhätup. for his grammar. Considering that his grammar was originally meant to be only an elementary one, and that consequently be ignored whole topics like the Samisa, as also the krt and the taddhita suffixes, it is not impossible that either he did not write any, or that if he did, it was incomplete. The various references to the roots or their anubandhas in the sutrap. do not necessarily imply Sarvavarman's own dhatup., for they might have some other then current dhatup. in view, preferably Papini's. Indeed there are some rules touching some aspects of the dhatup, which strengthen the suspicion that when Sarvavarman refers to the dhatup. it is to the Papinian one. While discussing the topic of the pada, Sa. (3,2,42.45) says regarding the roots in consonants that the rueddi roots take the atmanepada endings, and the yaydi roots take
57. See in this connection the present write's paper entitled 'A Glimpee into the Kasakrima School of Sanskrit Grammar read before the 17th session of the All-India Oriental Conference at Ahmedabad, 1953. As this paper is not printed so far, I quote from it a few instances here. Some technical terms used by Kk, which do not appear in Panini and otherwise first seen in the Katantra are: aghon, bandha, ap a, calradhituka, kavarga etc., caturtha, dhum i, vikaran, oh dhyakpara, samana, muara. The common vikaranas are: , ano luk, yan, mud and it. The common sútras are: pah pibah (Kk. p. 71 = Kt, 3.6.70), dhmo dhamah (Kk. 71 = Kt. 3.6.72), wo manal' and dito pacchak (Kk. 71 = Kt. 3.6.74-75), dvayam abhyastam (Kk. 175 = Kt, 3.3.5), uddhir adau sane (Kk 300 = Kt. 2.6.49) etc. - of course there are also a number of technical terms and sutras which are not found in any other known school of Skt. grammar, including even the Katantra
58. I have no knowledge of any publication of this dhatup. so far. I have here used chiefly BORI'S devanagari Ms. No, 252 of 1884-86. Two Bengali Mss. of the India Office Library, viz., No. 773 and 774 were also constantly consulted.
50. L ICH, NGGW, 1895, 316, also Kşiratarangini, p. 213, footnote: BELWALKAR, Systems, pp. 88, 90, WINTERNITZ, Geschichte, Vol. III, p. 388, footnote 3.
60. Though all these three sections appear in the current Kl. grammar, and are commented on by Durgasimha, they did not come from the pen of Sarvavarman, but are later additions, see LIECH, Einary I, 7; Ks. p. 233