________________
Panini's Fame in Patanjali's View
16. On the relation between the Candravyakarana and the Käsikä, as also between the Candrasutra and the Vṛtu, sec now Th. Oberlies, Studie zum Candravyakarana. Eine kritische Bearbeitung von Candra IV. 4.52-148 und V.2, Stuttgart 1989. 17. sāmkasya 455.12/17/24; 456.5/5
297.24
mathurā
I.
II.
1.
II.
III.
8.12; 19.5/6; 144.11; 192.11; 244.19;
205.7/7
299.3.
18. Cf. also II 160.25: yo'yam adhva gantavya ā pataliputräd etasmin kūpo bhavisyati/.
pajaliputra
144.11; 192.12; 154.19; 380.19; 455.10/22;
114.12; 160.25/25; 162.7/11; 311.23/25; 312.2
I.
II.
III.
477
192.12 (a pataliputrad vṛṣio deva (it); 299.3; 417.9.
19. See also what Jinendrabuddhi says immediately afterwards, viz.: kaḥ punar varjanasya maryādāyāš ca višeṣaḥ, yena purvasütre (i.e. 1.4.89) varjanan abhidhaycha maryādāgrahanam karoti? ayam asti višeṣaḥ-varjane hi tatparityägenänyaira samanyena varṣaṇādina sambandho gamyate, yatha a trigantebhyo vrsto deva iti; atra hi yasyam diši vyavasthito vaktedam vakyam prayunkte, tasyam disi yo deso yas tathanyāsu diksu tatra sarvatraiva trigartan varjayitva vrsta iti gamyate/maryādāyām tv idam vakyam prayunkte-a pataliputräd visto deva iti, tatsambandhinyäm eva diši yo vyavasthito deŝas tasya deŝasya varsanena sambandhaḥ pratiyata ity eşa višeṣaḥ/.
20. Which reads thus:
yaḥ patanjalisisycbhyo bhrasto vyakaraṇāgamaḥ / kāle sa dākṣinātycṣu granthamatre vyavasthitaḥ //.
21. L.c., p. 728.
22. Kiclhorn's edition is based on a small number of selected MSS. only. On the text history of the MBh. scc J. Bronkhorst, Three Problems Pertaining to the Mahabhaṣya, Poona 1987, pp. 1442 (where further biographical references are given).
23. As for the mantra which Limaye quotes from TaiA 10.1.7 (= Mahānārāyaṇa Up. 3.12 = 82) (katyāyanaya vidmahe kanyakumari (kumaryai) dhimahi/tan no durgiḥ (durga) pracodayāt), it is highly questionable whether kanya can be regarded as a vocative fonned in analogy to amba. And kanyakumari can because of the wider context hardly be taken not to mean "la jeune fille" as it is rendered by J. Varenne, La Maha Narayana Upanisad..., Paris 1960, p. 33. 24. L.c., p. 729.
25. Limaye's contention that "Mallinatha... is also at pains in explaining akumara" equally fails to pass critical examination. Mallinatha simply offers two alternative interpretations of the compound ākumārakathodghatam, and most probably following an older traduition at that (cf. e.g. Hemadri's cominentary on this verse); and he simply mentions a variant reading which he also explains in its turn!
26. From whose Bhasya on Manu 1.1 he quotes on p. 729.
27. Note that Limaye's emendation in the passage quoted by him from Jayanta's Nyāyamanjari, viz. that one should read a himavataḥ instead of a hi sarvata, has been strikingly confirmed by the new and critical edition prepared by Pandit K.S. Varadacharya, Mysore 1983 (sce part 2, p. 257)!
