How Far Did Paninis Fame Really Extend In Patanjalis View

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

Page 1

HOW FAR DID PANINI'S FAME REALLY EXTEND
IN PATANJALI'S VIEW? (Studies in Patanjali's Mahābhāsya IV)
A WEZLER
0. The article which V.P. Limaye has contributed to the "Diamond Jubilee Volume" of the BORI' bears the title "ākumāram yasah pāņineh corrupt for akumari yaśaḥ påņineh?.'? The question mark signals, it would seem, that what Limaye actually wants to do is to argue that akumaram is in fact corrupt and should therefore be emended to akumari. As this statement of Patanjali's about Pāņini is not only widely known among Sanskrit scholars not to speak of the many amateurs of this beautiful language— but evidently also of some importance in terms of an Indian History of Idcas, I should like to critically examine the reasons offered by Limaye in support of his thesis.
1. The first paragraph of his articlc reads thus:' "Patanjali in his Mahabhasya (MBh.) on Pānini ... 1.4.89 än maryādā vacane says: akumaram yasah panineh, that is to say, asă asya (Pāṇineh) yaśaso maryādā ('this is the limit of Panini's fame). What does this' mean? The Pradipa of Kaiyața explains: kumāran api yaśaḥ prāptam ity arthah. The Udyota (sic!) of Nāgesa comments directly on the MBh.: lad uktan bhāsye 'eşd'sya yasaso maryād!'/asya pāņinen / esā kumārarūpā / maryādā paricchedaheturity arthah."
In view of the fact that Limaye in subsequent parts of his article not only refers to Pan. 2.1.13 an maryadābhividhyoh, but also himself uses the terms maryāda, i.e "exclusive limit" (a + x="up to and excluding X") and abhividhi, i.e. "inclusive limit" (a + x = "up to and including x"), the degree to which he has abridged the discussion in the MBh. on Pan 1.4.89 seems problematic. It will in any case, I think, be useful to add the following information for those not familiar with Patanjali's work:
a) The phrase at issue (ākumāram ...) is adduced as an example meant to substantiate
the objcction that Pāņ. 1.4.89 - one out of a series of sūtras in which the so-called karmapravacaniyas are taught - has to be reworded, i.e. that an maryādābhividhyoh should be taught in its stcad.
b) This objection is refuted by the argument. maryādāvacana ity eva siddham/esåsya
yasaso maryādā/, "(such a rcwording is not necessary; the formation of phrases such as akumāram yasah paninch) correctly results already from the sutra (as it has been worded by Panini himself): (what is mcant by phrases like this is that this (i.e. what is depoted by the word govcmed by the proposition a) forms the limit of his fame".
c) This latter statement on its part is explained by Kaiyata as follows:' vacanagrahana
syedam prayojanam avāntarabhedapariharcņa paricchedahetumatram maryādā yathā