________________
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
Again, Prof. Pischel is said to have interpreted the verse in two different ways, taking the word nija to mean "their own" or "his own," and referring it to the genitive anujigamishatam and to the instrumental Trivikramena. I suspect if Prof. Pischel himself understood his own first interpretation.
I do not risk to stand on the strength of the authority of this nija only, however strong it may be, as the learned Editor has done, but give some other reasons equally strong to prove my statement that Trivikrama alone and not Vâlmiki is the author of the Sitras. In the following aloka, which is found at the end of Trivikrama-vritti:
220
LAUGUST, 1911.
sapratyaya-prakriti-siddham-ading a-sûtram satkárakam bahuvidha-kriyam-aptadesyam | sabdánusasanam idam praguna-prayogam traivikraman japata mantram-iv-ártha-siddyai ||
how can adirghasutram be a compliment to his work if the sûtras were not his own ? Moreover, Trivikrama says that he is composing the Sûtras himself in the following slokas:
desyam-arsham cha rúḍhatvat svatantratedch-cha bhûyasa | lakshma napekshate tasya sampradayo hi bodhakaḥ ||
prakriteḥ samskritát sádhyamánát siddhach-cha yad-bhavet | prakritasy-deya lakshy-anurodhi lakshma prachakshmahe ||
Here the verb in the first person (prachakshmahe) clearly states that the author of the Sutras is the author of the Vritti. Again, it has been pointed out by the late S. P. S. Baṭṭanâthâchârya Áryavaraguru that the Sutras in Trivikrama's order (their original sequence) form slokas in Arya, and, in a few cases, in Anushtubh metre. It is only for the metrical construction the author had to change the old paribhasha, and create a new one in some cases. The following will convince us regarding the metrical construction of these Sútras:
siddhir-lokach cha, nuktamanyasabelânusdeanavat, sanjid pratydamaged, up-addir-antyahaid,
ho hrasvo, dir-dirghaḥ, sashasdhuḥ, saḥ samása, adiḥ khuh, go ganaparo, dvitiyaḥ phuh, samyuktm stu, tu vikulpe" "latas-tiptavichech, sipthas sesi mir-mibiṭau, ihijhau
ntinte ire, dhadhvam-itthdhachau momunia masmahin."
Thus it is clearly seeu that the attribution of the authorship of the Sutras to Valmiki is unfounded; as the ancient poets, like Valmiki and Vyâsa, were not familiar with the metre, Arya, and no instance of such a metre occurs in their well-known epics. Evidently Prof. Hultzsch seems to have been led away by the tradition given in Prof. Rangacharya's Madras Catalogue (page 1088, No. 1548) attributing the Sutras to Valmiki. The author of Shadbhashachandrika seems to have originated the tradition-for before him no poet attributed these Sûtras to Valmikihaving observed somewhere the reading-evidently a wrong one-práchetasa-hemachandrddydt for the original prachyair-á-hemachandram-acharyail.
So I am of opinion that Trivikrama was the author of the Sûtras, and agree with Prof. Pischel, in so far that Trivikrama drafted the text in accordance with Hemachandra's grammar. But Trivikrama made some improvements on Hemachandra. He uses the well-known samjnds of Pânini, all through, except in a few cases where the metrical construction did not allow. And these new samjnds here and there were explained by the author himself and also by Prof. Hultzsch in his preface to Prakrita-rûpavatara.
The adoption of Panini's samjids made his Satras more concise, and the metrical construction of these Sutras, which has been referred to before, enables the students to memorise them more easily than the isolated ones of Hemachandra.
