________________
THE THREE ACHARYAS.
DECEMBER, 1876.]
this alone of similar aphorisms was composed by him, and commented on with all the formality of a scholiast, is, I think, unreasonable. There appears no reason why in this particular case Patanjali should have resorted to this plan. If he wanted to say that he now began the Sabdánusásanaśástra, he might have done so more directly than by composing an aphorism and commenting on it.§
From the passages quoted above, it seems that the verb anváchashțe is used by Patanjali as characteristic of the work of Katyayana, as describing specifically what he did. His own work Patanjali calls vyáklyána, and frequently uses the verb vyáklyásyámah. There is another word that is used in controversial writing, and occurs in the Mahabhashya also, which is derived from the same root, viz. pratyáklyána. The difference in the senses of these words 'must be due to the prepositions or upasargas that are used in each case. Pratyákhyána is speaking against or refuting a thing; vyúkhyana is speaking about a thing, or away, in varied ways, in detail, of a thing, i.e. writing a commentary on it, and anvákhyána must mean speaking in accordance with, agreeably to, or to the same purpose as a thing. The word is used with reference to Katyayana in other forms in two other places, where it is contrasted with teaching something new. If, then, it properly denotes what Kâtyâyana did mostly, if not altogether, with reference to Panini's sutras, his work must be in accordance, in keeping, in harmony with Panini's, i.e. explain, develop, or support the latter. That the word anvakhyana is peculiarly applicable to Katyâyana's work is also confirmed by the fact that this is called anutantra in the Vakyapadiya. For these reasons it is clear that Kâtyâyana's object in composing his work was to teach grammar, first, by developing and explaining Panini, and then supplementing him, and not "to find fault with him," as the late Prof. Goldstücker thought. The vyakhyana of the work of this author
§ It is only modern authors that say that the vártikas begin with siddhe subdarth, &c.
Mahabhashya, I. p. 131, I. p. 42, I. p. 49, III. 67a, and many other places.
I. p. 220 & b. -प्रयोजनमन्वाख्यायते । आहोस्वित्संवृउपदेशयते । III. p. 582, एवं तन्वाचष्टेनुपसर्ग इत्येवं वर्तत इति । नैतदन्वाख्येयमधिकारा अनुवर्तन्त इति । एष एव न्यायो यदुताधिकारा अनुवर्तेरनिति ।
Prof. Kielhorn's article, Ind. Ant. vol. V. p. 247,.
notes.
347
directly, and that of Pânini indirectly, was what Patanjali proposed to himself. He himself explains what the duties of one who undertakes this task are. "Not only," says he, "does the division of a sútra into the individual words which compose it constitute vyakhyana, but example, counter-example, and the words to be understood or supplied, all these taken together make up vyakhyana."+ To explain the vártikas thus in detail, to discuss the sutras, and occasionally to give supplementary rules (ishtis) where necessary, was Patanjali's main object, and not to refute Kâtyâyana.
Now, if we look into the Mahábháshya, we shall find this view of the relations of the three Munis amply confirmed. In fact, the instances in which there is no refutation of one by another, but simply an explanation of the words, or the bearing of the words, of the earlier sage by the later one, are so many that it is difficult to see how any other view can be maintained. Not to go very far for the present, none of the eleven passages quoted above contains or is followed by a refutation, while they all give some explanation. No. 1 explains why Kâtyâyana gives the uses of grammar; in No. 2 Kâtyâyana is spoken of as making a rule calculated to restrict the operation of another laid down by himself. In the vartika in No. 3, Kâtyâyana tells us that another vártika of his, which is likely to supersede Pân. VIII. 1. 24, ought not to do so; in the one in No. 4 he explains the word anvadeśa used in Pân. II. 4. 32; in that in No. 5 he tells us in what relation the words kartri and karman occurring in Pân. III.3. 127 are to be taken; in the one in No. 6 he explains Pân. III. 3. 141, and clears a doubt that naturally arises; in that in No. 7 he says that a vártiku of his should not supersede Pân. IV. 3. 6; in the one in No. 8 he explains the word etayoh occurring in Pân. IV. 3. 143; in that in No. 9 he tells us that the words dvi and tri occurring in Pân. V. 1. 30 are to be taken on to the next sútra only, i.e. they apply to
+ न केवलानि चर्चा पदानि व्याख्यानं वृद्धिः आत् ऐजिति । किं तर्हि । उदाहरणं प्रत्युदाहरणं वाक्याध्याहार इत्येतत्समुदितं व्याख्यानं भवति । I. p. 18a. By the way, this passage justifies those who ascribe the examples contained in the Mahabhishya to Patanjali, and draw historical inferences from them with regard to his age and other matters. For we are here told that it is the business of the author of vyákhyana to give examples. There is little reason, then, to suppose that the examples were handed down from the time of Panini or Katyayana.
