________________
182
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[JUNE, 1887.
opinionof Bhartijtalkshita(Siddhanta-Kaumudi, P. VIII. 3, 118 सदिस्व योः [such is the new Bombay Ed. No. 963), which I now accept | reading of the MSS. of the Kahika] परस्वलिटि as correct. Haradatta, misled by the fact that originally was only सदेः परस्व लिटि. स्वब्धि the Varttika आत्मनश्च पुरणे in the MSS. of the which is given also by Chandra, has been Mahibheshya has been put under P. VI. 3,5, added from Katyâyana's Vårttika on the rule and by Patalkijali's explanation आत्मनश्च पूरण उप- (Vol. III. p. 451). संण्वान कर्तव्यम्, instead of भात्मनश्च पूरण इति| P.VIII. 1,73 नामन्विते समानाधिकरणे सामान्यवक्तबम्, takes the whole आत्मनश्च पूरणे to be an | वचनम् and 74 विभाषितं विशेषवचने बहुवचनमः addition to PApini's original text (वार्तिकमेवेदं] originally were 78 नामन्त्रिते समानाधिकरणे and 74 सवरूपेण पठितम्); but the words भास्मनश्च are | सामान्यवचन विभाषितं विशेषवचने. The new necessary for the following rule P. VI. 3, 7, and division of the two rules and the addition of Nagbjibhatta (in the Uddy6ta and Laghusab- बहुवचनम् are suggested by Pataijali (Vol. III. dendubékhara) has not, in my opinion, been pages 383 and 394), but at the same time successful in proving that we can do without | Patanjali himself adds that the word सामान्यthose words (भवात्मनश्च पूरण इति विशिष्ट वार्तिकमि- वचनं or, according to others, विशेषवचने may be स्ववस्वभाष्यस्वरसादाबाति वैयाकरणास्थायामित्यन्न पर- omitted from the rules. Kaiyata on 73 reस्थ चेति चेन परशब्दप्रतिद्वनितयात्मशब्दस्यैव महणं | marks-नामन्विते समानाधिकरण इति सूर्व पठित सदुभव चैकसूवमित्याहः).
ततः सामान्यवचन विभाषितं विशेषवचन इति हिसीबम्, P. VI. 3, 40 स्वानार्थतोऽमानिनि originally was | and on 74-बहुवचनमहणमपाणिनीयमिति. only स्वाजाचंतः, and भमांनिनि has been added Finally, it may appear doubtful, if the rule from Katyayana's Varttika स्वानाचेतोऽमानिनि P.VIII. 2,12 from the beginning did contain (Vol. III. p. 156% compare also Vol. II. P. 193, the word कशीवत्, because the formation of 1.2 and Vol. III. p. 157, 1. 11). Kaiyata that word has been specially tanght in Virt.7 has the note-स्वाजाचेत इत्येतावत्सूवामिति मत्वा | on P.VI. 1, 37 (Vol. III. p.33). The opinions वासिकारम्भ:
of native scholars are divided on this point, P.VI. 3,83 प्रत्याशिष्यगोवत्सहलेषु originally for, while Kaiyata (on P. VI. 1,37) rojects the was only प्रकल्याशिषि, to which अगोवत्सहलेषु has
| Virttika aasuperfluous (आसन्दीववष्ठीवदित्वन been added in accordance with the suggestions
necestions|कसीवच्छ वस्व निपातनाहार्तिक नारब्धव्यम्), Nagdof Katyayana and Patañjali. For Katyayana has jsbhaya reports that others consider the word amended Panini's original rule by adding to it ffre to be spurious in P. VIII. 2. 12 (outभगवादिषु, and Patanjali in explaining the|व्यप्रामाण्यात्तन, is in P. VIII. 2, 12, कली. Varttika has given the example सगवे सवत्साय | वच्छब्बपाठोडनाइत्वन्ये). सहलाब (Vol. III.p.171). Kaiyata has the noteभगोवत्सहलेविति भाष्यवात्तिकदर्शनास्सूबे केनचित्प- 3. The wording of rules altered . क्षिप्तम् .
othørwise than by the addition of one P. VI. 4, 100 घसिभसोहलि च. Katyayana's |
or more words. Vårttika on the rule (Vol. III. p. 213) shows that the rule originally did not contain the P. V. 3, 5 yarets. Patanjali's remarks on particle , which has been added for the very this rule (Vol. II. p. 403) show that the purpose of making the rale, in accordance reading known to him was toets. Patajali with Katyayana's suggestion, more widely ap-considers the superfluous, and by doing so plicable. In Vol. III. p. 213, 1. 19 some MSS. suggests the reading GetS:.Kaiyata has the of.the Mahabhashya read the rule withouth | note नह केचिदणं पठन्ति केचिदनम्. others with T. Kaiyata appends the note- | P. VI. 1, 115 प्रकृत्वान्तःपादनम्बपरे. Katylअन्यनापीति वचनाहार्तिककारचकारंन पपाठेति लक्ष्यते.yana's rending of this rule was. नान्तःपावनम्बपरे
P.VIII. 1, 67 पूजनात्यूजितमनुवा काष्ठादिभ्यः (Vol. III. p. 86). But from Vol. III. p..89, originally did not contain the word काष्ठादिभ्यः ,] lines 7 and 18, p. 91,1.8, and other paspages which has been added in accordance with the | in the MahAbhishya it appears, that the readsuggestion of Katyayana (Vol. III. P.379).ing प्रकृत्या , instead of म, was known already to Kaiyata has the note-काहादिम्ब इति सूत्रे वार्मिः । Patanjali. In the Katka we have the note- करमारकोधियशिमम्..
केचिदिक सूर्य मान्तःपादनम्बपर इति पठन्ति....
.'
