________________
MAY, 1876.]
REMARKS ON THE SIKSHÅS.
143
should have felt little hesitation in agreeing with him ; for there are traces in the latter to show that the principal doctrines embodied in our present Sikshás were not unknown at the time when the Prátisákhyas were composed. But I am again obliged to differ from Professor Haug when he maintains that the teachings of the Sikshás have been more fully developed in the Prátisalchyas. On whatever point I have com- pared the doctrines of both classes of works, I have almost in every instance been driven to the conclusion that the teachings of the Sikshas are fuller and more minute than those of the Prátisákhyas,-that the former give much of detail which, if not unknown, has at any rate found no place in the latter. What do the Prátiśá- khyas teach us regarding the denotation of the svaras by means of the hands and fingers, about which the Sikshas have so much to say, and about which they give such minute rules ? All I can find are one or two short rules in the Vájasaneyi-prátisákhya, which contain hardly more than ten words. Why was Professor
Haug himself the first to point out the different kinds of vivritti and of svarabhakti so accurately described and classified in nearly every Silisha ? Is there any Prátisakhya which more accurately or more fully treats of the evarita than the Sikshas do, any one which tries to describe the relation of the so-called four accents to the seven musical notes in the manner in which this is done in the Sikshas? The Prátisákhyas do teach much that is not to be found in the Sikshús, but on no one point do they teach more on what it is the object and the business of the latter to give information.
The Sikshds are manuals intended to teach the proper manner of ruciting the Vedas, and inasmuch as the compiler of a manual has to adapt himself to the capacities and previous mental training of those for whom his work is designed, it is natural that the Silcshákaras should have given to their teachings the simplest possible form, that they should have illustrated them by examples which even the uneducated might be supposed to be familiar with, and
|| That Sikshas in verse were in existence when Patan. jali composed his great commentary on Katyayana's Vart. tikas, seems to me very probable; for the verse which he quotes when explaining the term hart of the Varttika आकृत्युपदेशात्सिद्धमिति चेत्संवृतादीनां प्रतिषेध: in the intro. ductory Áhnika
प्रस्तं निरस्तमविलम्बितं निर्हत
मम्बूकृतं ध्मातमथो विकम्पितम् | संदष्टमेणीकृतमर्धकं द्रुतं
विकीर्णमेताः स्वरदोषभावनाः॥ has all the appearance of being a Siksha-verse, even in this particular that the first line violates the metrical rules.
Loc.cit. p. 57, note 1. In my own copies of the Man. dakt siksha the optional name for Pak avati is not Ma- dhyd, but Yavamadhya.
उभाभ्यामेव हस्वाभ्या यवमध्यां विनिर्दिशेत् ।
ताभ्यामेव तु दीर्घाभ्यां विज्ञेया सा पिपीलिका॥ The Sarvasarnmata dikaha has for vatsanurit& 'vatsd- musriti,' which is also found in the Vyasa-fiksha.
* Instead of the term kariy (loc. cit. note 2) of the Mand ake and Yajavalkya-siksha, other Sikshas have karenu. See, e.g., Sarvasammata Siksha :
करेणू रहयोोंगे कर्विणी लहकारयो।। हरिणी रशसानां च हारिता लशकारयोः।
या तु हंसपदा नाम सा तु रेफषकारयोः॥ and Vysa-siksha:
स्वरभकिः करणू ये होवों ल: कविणी भवेत्।
हरिणी शषसोध्यों रो लकारो हारितोच्यते॥ + A knowledge of the Sikshas might have rendered assistance to the editors of the Pratibakhyas, excellently as the latter have been edited, or it would at any rate
have guarded them against occasional rash statements. The commentary on the Taittir. Prat. XIX. 3 states that the word is synonymous with FICT, upon which Professor Whitney remarks: "In yama as a synonym of svarita, and meaning 'circumflex,' I cannot in the least believe." Indian, like other commentators, are not infallible, but in this instance the commentator was right, for in defining the Praślishta svarita the Vysa-fiksha says
उचोत्वान्त्रीच उत्वे स्यात्पश्लिष्ट : संधितो यमः The commentator is right, too, when he states that TT (not merely describes the nature of the suurita, bat) is actually another term for that this likewise can be proved from the Sikshas.
That the term , by itself, is synonymous with 474 appears from the following verse of the Vasa fiksha :
स्वारः शीचे मुखे ऽप्युचपचयौ निहतो हदि।
नांचोचस्वारधृताश्चैव विज्ञेयाः प्रजापती॥ This passage will show that the reading of the MSS. of the Panintya-fiksha, v. 43, V V, ought not to have been altered to धृतव, and that the word उपान्तमध्य should have been translated by the ring and the middle fingers.' (Ind. Stud. vol. IV. p. 363.) The following verses of the Bharatab Mshya called Sarasvatihridvyabhashma, the author of which professes to have studied the Sikshas of Panini, N Arada, and Apisali, are evidently based on the verse of the Papiniya-fik&hd referred to in the above :
अष्ठस्य मुखाग्रेण तर्जनीमूलसारणात् । उदात्तः स स्वरो नाम पेदविद्भिरुदाहृतः॥ कनिष्ठामूलसंस्पर्शानुदाच इति स्मृतः। स्वरितो ऽनामिकामूलसंस्पर्शायः स्वरो भवेत् ॥ मध्यमामूलतो विद्यात्मचितं स्पर्शनादपि।
