________________
MARCH, 1873.]
CORRESPONDENCE, &c.
95
satra tells us that the termination ka appliod to the naines of objects, in the sense of images of those objects, is dropped in cases when the images enable one to earn his livelihood, but are tot salcable. Upon this Patanjali observes that, because the word
unsaleable' is used, such forms as Sicah, Skun lah, and Visállat (in which the terminntion ku is dropped) are not valid. Why not? Because the Manryns, desirous of obtaining gold, itsed, or applied to their purpose, i.e., sold, objects of worship. Sinee, then, these triz., images of Siva, &c.) were solel by then, they were parya, orsaleable, aud hence the termination ka should not be dropped. It may not be dropped in those cases (i.e., the proper forms must be Sivaka, &c.), says Patanjali, but it is dropped in the case of those images which are now used for worship. This interpretation of the passage is consistent and proper. Prof. Weber understands it to mean, that the only cases in which the rule about the dropping of the termination does not apply, are those of images will which the Mauryas were concerned. But that it is inapplicable to all images that are saleable, is clear from the passage itself, and the two coininentaries on it. Kaiyata distinctly says that the role does not apply to those that are sold, and gives S'irakán Vilirinile as an instance. What Patanjali means to say is that the termination ka should be applied to the names of the images sold by the Mauryas, according to Panini's rule; but the rule is set aside in this case, and the wrong forms Siva, Skanda, and Visakha are used. Nagojibhatta expressly states-tatra pratyaya-sravanam ishtameveti vadan sútrasyoddharanam darg'ayati (i. e., saying that the use of the termination there is necessary, be points out an instance of the rule). Now, in all this there is not only nothing to slow that Papini had the images sold by the Mauryas in view, but that the names of those images violate his rule. Dr. Goldstücker's interpretation of this passage is also not correct.
In the next place Prof. Weber thinks that the word Acharya in such expressions as pas'yati tvacharyah, occurring in the Mahâbhâshya, applies to Patanjali. It appears to me that Prof. Weber has overlooked the context of these passages. In all these cases the &sharya meant is clearly Panini, and not Patanjali. I will here briefly exainine two or three of the passages referred to by the Professor, for I have no space for more. In the first of these, the question Patanjali discusses is this :- Which is it that is used in the term an occurring in the sutra ur an raparah, i. e., does an here mean only a, i, and u, or all the vowels, semi-vowels, and h! He answers by saying that then in this case is clearly the first, and not the sccond, that is, that which is at the end of the sutra a, i, un, and
lience an signifies only the vowels a, i, and . And why is it to be so understood ? The shtra ur an ruparuh means, when an is substituted for ri, it is always followed by F, that is, if, for instance, you are told in a shtra to substitute a for ri, you should substitnte not a alone, but ar. Now, the reason why, in this shtra, an siguifies the first three vowels only, is that there is no other significate of the more comprehensive term an, that is, no other vowel or any semi-vowel or h which is ever substituted for ri. "Why not? there is," says the objector. One instance brouglat forward by him is explained away, and another that he adduces is Mátrinam. In this case, by the sutra nami, a long vowel, i.e., ri, is substituted for the short ri. Ri is a significate of the more comprehensive an, and not of the less comprehensive. Hence, then, the objector would say the an, in the shtra ur an,&c., is the more comprehensive one. But, says the siddhanti, this is not a case in which the substitute has an added on to it. Does it follow from Pånini's work itself that no ris to be adiled ? For aught we know, Panini may have meant that should be added in this case also. Now, the evidence from Panini for this is in the shtra rita iddhatoh. This is the reason, says the siddhanti, 'why the word dhatu is put in the sutra,- that in such cases 88 Mátrinam and Pitrinam, which are not dhatus, ir may not be substituted for the long rí. If the long vowel subatitute in Mátrinam had an r foHowing it, it would not be necessary to put the word dhátu in this sutra, for Matrir would not then be an anga 'or basef ending in rí, and such bases only are intended in the sutra rita iddhá toh. The use of the word dhátu then shows that "the Acharya sees that in Mátrinam, &c., the long substitute has not an following it, and hence ho uses the word dhátu in the stra." | Now, it is evident from this that the Acharya is Pånini, for the acharya is spoken of as having put the word dhatu in the shtra for a certain purpose. The author of the statras being Panini, the acharya meant must be he himself. In the same manner, in the passage at page 196 (Ballant. edition), Pinini is intended, for the Acharya is there spoken of as having put i after ri in the stra urrit. Similarly, in Page 197, the acharya is represented as having used twice in the pratyahara stras. The author of these stras, then, is meant there. And I may say that, so far as I have seen the Bhashya, the word acharya used in this way applies either to Pânini or Katyayans, and Patanjali never speaks of himself as acharya.
Thirdly.-Prof. Weber's interpretation of the vârtika parokshecha loka,&c., is differene from Dr. Goldstücker's and nine. But he will see that our interpretation is confirmed by Kaiyata and Nagojilbatta. He seems to take paroksham in the sense of the past.' wrong or not good. It ought to be anantyuttad, as in the new Banaras edition.
Pas'yatitvůcharyo nâtre raparatvam bhavati tato dbtu agrahanm karuti.
• The reading in the Banaras edition is archyah, and not archál.
† Antyatvdd, the reading in Ballantyne's Mahabhäsbya, is
