Grammatical Riddles from Jain Works

Author(s): Nalini Balbir
Publisher: Z_Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_1_002105.pdf and Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_2

Page 38

306
Nalini Balbir
Jambū-jyoti
the interpretation of the Astādhyāyi': Proceedings of the International Seminar on Pānini. University of Poona. Pune, 1983 (CASSE, 9), p. 180-181. - The corresponding sūtra in the Jainendra-vyākarana does not apply to the root jan: idah s-dhve
(5.1.136). 36. Some information on V. can be found in the following sources : Abhyankar 1961,
s.v. Višrāntavidyādhara, with the quotation of a popular verse (p.336); F. Kielhorn, “Indragomin and other grammarians", Indian Antiquary 15 (1886), p. 182 and n. 4(= Kleine Schriften, p. 243): quotations from Hemacandra's Nyasa on his own Sanskrit grammar, and references to the Ganaratnamahodadhi; H. R. Kapadia, Jaina Samskrta Sahitya no Itihasa Vol. 1. Baroda, 1956, p. 23-24 of the second
chapter: Convenient collection of whatever information is available. 37. TheAmoghavrtti on sākatāyana (ed. by Pt. Shambhu Nath Tripathi Kashi, Bharatiya
Jnanpitha, 1971 (Inanapitha Moorti Devi Jain Grantha Mala, Sanskrit Grantha No. 37) quotes both verbal and nominal forms, whereas Abhayacandrasūri's commentary
(ed. by G. Oppert. Madras, 1893) takes instances from the stemgo-duh-only. 38. Correction suggested by Prof. P. S. Filliozat (see also below). Ed. vitundati na is
probably wrong. The hints provided by the Indian editor for this part of the riddle
are not helpful at all. It seems he missed the point. 39. I am extremely thankful to Prof. P. S. Filliozat, without whom I was at a complete
loss to understand this question and its answer. His help has also proved invaluable
for solving a few other points connected with this paper. 40. See n. 2 p. 297 in the edition of the Akhyanakamanikośavrtti. 41. Commentary (vrtti) by Durgasimha in ed. J. Eggeling. Calcutta, 1874 (Bibliotheca
Indica 297-298), translated in B. Liebich, Zur Einführung in die einheimische Sprachwissenschaft. I. Das Kätantra. Heidelberg, 1919, p. 48; commentary (called Rupamālāvrtti) by the Digambara writer Bhāvasena Traividya, ed. with Hindi translation by Ganinī Āryika Śrī Jñanamatī mātāji. Hastinapur, 2nd ed. 1992. In
this edition, the sūtras have a continuous numbering. Our sūtra is No. 411. 42. Similar wording in the Jainendra-vyāk.: rujarthasya bhāva-vācino 'jvari-santäpyoh
(1.4.61) and jāsa-niprahana-nata-krātha-pisan himsāyam (1.4.63); in säkatāyana : rujo 'jvarisantāpyoh kartari bhāve (1.3.113) and himsāyām jāsanātakrathapisanipradhnam (1.3.114); in Hemacandra : rujārthasyajvarisantăper bhāve karttari (2.2.13), jāsa-nata-krātha-piso hiṁsāyām (2.2.14) and ni-prebhyo ghnah (2.2.15). There does not seern to be anything comparable to these sūtras in the Candra-vyäk.