________________
18
ABORI : Diamond Jubilee Volume
there was also a demand for works that would provide an overview or gist of the system of grammar.
4.1 The above analysis was prompted mainly by the consideration that the interpretation of 481-482 given in footnote 23 should not be accepted uncritically—that it should be recognised that there are two possibilities of interpretation leading to two significantly different depictions of the history of the Pāninian tradition. The analysis is motivated also by a desire to determine the sense of verse 484. Thieme ( 1956 : 19 footnotes 45-46) has expressed the view that 484c, ārse viplāvite granthe, refers to the Astādhyāyi of Pānini. My analysis of 481-483 should serve to indicate that this cannot be the case. The relationship mentioned in them is that between the Mahābhāşya and the Sangraha. There is no reason why their author should suddenly switch from a consideration of the Mahābhāșya to that of the Astādhyāyi. Thieme's interpretation creates a problem also for what follows 484. If we go along with it, the logical link between 483 and 485 is lost. The former tells us that the grammarians who flourished after Patañjali did not exhibit either the patience or the intellectual ability needed for determining the acceptable views in a work like the Mahābhāşya. From the latter we learn that the traditional (interpretive ) lore of grammar slipped from the hands of the disciples of Patañjali. In between we need a statement saying in effect that the understanding of the Mahābhāsya became distorted as a result of the variety of interpretations and that the confusing variety of interpretations discouraged prospective students. Only verse 484 can provide that link, and that too only if it is interpreted as "speaking of the Mahābhāsya.
4.2 Every expression that occurs with ārse viplāvite granthe in 484 indicates, directly or indirectly, that the reference of the verse cannot be to the Astādhyāyi : (a) From the place at which the names of Vaiji, etc. occur it is clear that those grammarians, pseudo-grammarians, or anti-grammarians lived after Patañjali. The target of their activity, or at least the primary target of their activity, therefore, is more likely to be Patañjali's work than Pāṇini's work. (b) śuşka tarka is characterized in the Vrtti of 1. 153 as sabdaŚakti-rūpāparigshitah..sādharmya-vaidharmya-mātrānusāri sarvāgamopaghāta-hetutvād anibandhanah and in the Tikā on 2.484 as anya-śāstra-parimalarahitaḥ. Thus, the expression suska-tarkānusāribhiḥ specifically points out the failure of Vaiji and others to take into consideration the related branches of knowledge and to realise that the words employed in the tradition of grammar are to be understood in a contextually sensible way. Now, I think it is evident that the Asțādhyāyi does not so directly demand of its readers a knowledge of the principles employed in other systems as does the Mahā
