________________
June, 1887.)
NOTES ON THE MAHABHASHYA.
179
P
number of rules the printed text differs, more पादपादम्. This rule is neither treated of nor or less, from the text which is furnished by quoted in the Mahâbhâshya. The three MSS. the best MSS., and that wrong readings have in of the Kásiká, both in the rule and in the succession crept from one edition into another. commentary, and the MS. of the Ashtadhyáyi A few examples may show this:
have GTF, and Chandra has the rule P. III. 1, 109 all the printed texts have AT TYTT. RETTET. Here three old and valuable P.V.4,68 all the printed texts have TerT:. MSS. of the Kasiká, and an old MS. of the The MSS. of the Mahâbhâshya GaK and origiAshtadhyayi which I owe to the kindness of nally A, as well as the three MSS. of the Kasika, Dr. Bhandarkar, have greger; the MSS. both in the rule and in the commentary, and of the Mahabhåshya GAK, which here as the MS. of the Ashtadhydys read
, elsewhere give only the beginning of the rule, which singular form is supported by Mahabhahave fore, and in the Mahabhishya shya, Vol. II. p. 438, lines 23 and 25, and Vol. II. p. 2, where the rule is quoted, the p. 443, 1. 15, and is no doubt correct. MSS. aK have 'UTENT. From this there can Not taking into account rules such as these, be no doubt, that the right reading is out to which I might add a fairly large number (Csás-vrio, not, as in P. VII. 4, 2, 6ász-rio). of other rules for which the MSS. furnish a P. III.2, 21 all the printed texts have better text than the one printed, the Satras
u r, and all accordingly have four of the Kátiká-Vritti, which can be shown to in the commentaries. In this case the MSS. differ from the Sätras as known to either Kiof the Mahabhåshya are of no value, because tyâyana or Patañjali, may be treated of under they only give the commencement of the rule foar heads. 1. Excepting as regards the obserfraft; nor is the rule quoted anywhere invation of the rules of Sandhi, the wording of the Mahabhashya. But all the three MSS. of the text has remained unchanged, but several the Kasika omit निद्या from the rule and निशाकरः consecutive words, which originally were one from the commentary, and the MS. of the rule, have been separated so as to form two or Ashtádhyayê has four added secunda manu in even three rules. The technical name for this the margin. Accordingly there can in my proceeding is Yoga-vibhága, the splitting-up opinion be no doubt, that Påņini has not taught of a rule (into two or more rules).' 2. One or the formation of the word a an. Judging more words have been added to the original from the quotations in Böhtlingk and Roth's text of a rule. 3. The wording of 'rules has been Dictionary, front, which is taught by Påņini, altered otherwise than by the addition of one is an old word, occurring twice in the Atharva- or more words. 4. Whole rales have been added veda, bat furat is not.
to the original text of the Ashtadhyayi. The P. IV. 1, 62 all the printed texts have particulars arder each of these four heads are cafortfar. This rule is neither treated of as follows : nor quoted in the Mahabhashya. The three MSS. of the Käsikd and the MS. of the
1. Yoge-vibhaga. Ashtadhyay have reafaruft, without sfat, and P. I. 1,177 and 18 # originally formed 80 reads Chandra.
the one rule 3 and the splitting ap of P. IV. 3; 119 all the printed texts have that rule into two was first suggested by
"I may perhaps draw attention here as to a real gem of ingenious interpretation-to the manner, in which this word of the above rule has been explained by the author of the Siddhantakaumudi (New Bombay Ed. No. 517). It is well known (although nothing is said about it in our Dictionaries), that at any rate in works of the Indian middle Ages at sometimes conveys the sense of
HTC or C' words like this,' 'this and similar words. When Hémachandra in his sabdanusiaana' says
forutstag that térm means, and is by Hémachandra himself explained to mean, nirerat :' words like
पाणिगृहीती' पाणिगृहीती and similar words' , and when in his Liiganusasana he says quafa, he himself tella us that he means 397414. This use being well known to Bhaktojfatkabita, that scholar connects the word of of the above rule of Påmini's with, and in constraing the rule, wishes us to place it after, HTTP, and he then explains 4 T ato mean TTC, 1.., 7191 . Comment appears superfluous.
Thin word, taken by itself, does not fit into Papini's text, because it is in the Genitive case.
