________________
184
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JUNE, 1887.
On 132 Kaiyata has the note-srfrs of one or more words, and one rule has been altered in addition to being split up into two rules (P. VI. 1, 137 and 138). Altogether the text given in the Kásiká-Vritti (and that of the Ashtadhyayi in the editions) contains 20 more Satras than the original text.
The origin of the changes, which the text has undergone, can in most cases be traced in the Mahâbhashya. Out of 8 cases of Yogavibhága, 5 have been suggested by Kâtyâyana and 2 by Patanjali. In the case of 19 rules, which have received additions, the words added have in 13 rules been taken from the Várttikas, in 4 rules from Patanjali's notes, and in one rule jointly from Kâtyâyana's and Patanjali's remarks; in the case of one rule the word added has not been actually taken from a Vårttika, but the addition has been made to comply with a suggestion of Katyâyana's. In the case of 12 rules, which have been otherwise chang
P. VI. 1, 100 fanff is really a Vår. ttika of Katyayana's on P. VI. 1, 99 (Vol. III. p. 77). Kaiyata again has the note-ed, the changes can in 5 rules be traced to
freferr
Katyayana's and in one rule to Patanjali's suggestions. Of the 10 rules, which have been added to the original text, 7 are Varttikas of Katyayana, 2 are based on Vârttikas, and one is a note of Patanjali's.
5. Regarding 133 the opinions of the commentators differ; according to Kaiyața the rule is an original Sûtra, but Haradatta rightly remarks—पूर्वे च सूत्रमिदं च वार्त्तिके दर्शनात्सूत्रेषु
fra, and on the margin of the MS. a of the Mahàbhäshya we have the note - इदमपि वार्त्ति के दृष्ट्रा सूवेषु प्रक्षिप्तम्.
P. V. 1, 36 h is really a Vârttika of Katyayana's on the preceding rule. (Vol. II. p. 350). By Chandra the wording of that Várttika has been altered to द्वित्र्यादेरणच. Kaiyata has the note—द्विविपूर्वादण्वेति सूत्रेष्वनार्षः पाठ डा वार्णिकारम्भ..
P. VI. 1, 62 fr fr is really a Vârttika of Katyayana's on the preceding rule (Vol. III. p. 41). Here, too, Kaiyata has the noteहड्डा केस्त्रिषु प्रक्षिप्तम्
P. VI. 1, 186 अडभ्यासव्यवायेऽपि teaches the same as, and is clearly based on, KâtyAyana's Varttikas 5 and 6, अव्यवाय उपसंख्यानम् and on P. VI. 1, 135 (Vol. III. p. 92). Kaiyata has the note-sfif *ears afhangfer,and Nagojibhatta adda -अनार्षः सूत्रे पाठः.
Finally, P. VI. 1, 156 are : has been taken from Patanjali's notes on P. VI. 1, 157 (Vol. III. p. 96). Here the Kášiká itself has the remark-केचिदिदं सूत्रं नाधीयते पारस्करप्रभृनिष्वेव कारस्करी वृक्ष इति पठन्ति.
The result of this inquiry then is as follows: The text of the Ashtadhyayi, which is given in the Kasika-Vritti, differs in the case of 58 rules (excluding here the somewhat doubtful case of P. VIII. 2, 12) from the text which was known to Katyayana or Patanjali. 10 of those 58 rules are altogether fresh additions to the original text (by which I mean here the text known to Katyayana or Patanjali). 17 rules were from the beginning part of the text, but in the original text those 17 rules did not form 17, but were only 8 separate rules. 19 rules, which also belong to the original text, have each had one or more words added to them. The wording of 10 original rules has been changed otherwise than by the addition
Have the rules of the Ashtádhyay since the time of the composition of the Mahâbhashya undergone any changes besides those which have been indicated in the preceding, and in particular, is there any reason to suppose that other new rules have been added to the original text? After the careful study which I have given to the Mahabháshya and the literature connected with it, I feel no hesitation in answering this question in the negative. Besides the 1,713 rules, which are actually treated of by Kâtyâyana and Patanjali, nearly 600 rules are fully and about 350 other rules partly quoted in the Mahabhashya. And as a large number of other rules is absolutely necessary for the proper understanding of those rules for which we have the direct testimony of Patanjali, and for the formation of words used by that scholar in the course of his arguments-I refer to the numerous quotations at the foot of the pages in my edition-we nay rest satisfied that our text of the Ashtadhyayi, or rather the text of the best MSS., does not in any material point differ from the text which was known to Patanjali.
