________________
Max, 1917)
BOOK NOTICE
107
Kramadiévara, Saupadma, Sarasvata, etc., are well of the first one. Was Sakatayana the author of come, inasmuch as they contain information glean the Amoghavritti 1 of the reasons adduced by ed from sources which are not within easy reach Prot. Pathak in support of his view, which deserve of every one.
serious consideration, there are two; firstly, a conIn the portion dealing with Paņini and his school
clusion to be drawn from certain statements of we read at p. 29: "Katyayana's work, the varti.
Yaloshavarman the author of the Chintamani, in kes, are meant to correct, modify, or supplement
combination with the fact that the Amoghavritti the rules of Panini wherever they were or had be.
and the Chintamani contain many demonstrable come partially or totally inapplicable," and fur.
phrases and sentences which are either identical ther on, p. 33 : "his [ecil. Pataljali's) chief sim
with, or differ but very little from, each other; swas to vindicate Påņini against the often unmeri.
condly, an explioit statement of Chidananda Kavi tod attaoks of Katyayana." It would appear from
(ca. A. D. 1700) to the effect that Balatayana was this that Dr. Belvalkar has overlooked & small
the author of the Amoghavritti. The first point brochure of Kielhorn's entitled "Katydyana and
requires further elucidation. In v. 4 of the introPatanjali : to their mutual relation each other and to
ductory stanza of the Chintamani, Yakshavar.
man tells us that his commentary is morely an Panini, " (Bombay, 1876), written with the
abridgment of another very extensive commentexpress purpose of combating this generally accepted but orroneous view and of demonstrating
ary. His words may be interpreted to mean that that many of Katyayana's edrttikas are meant
the author of the latter work was sakafAyana him
self. In fact, this is the view I expressed in my merely to explain the full scope of the adfras
dissertation on the Sakatayans grammar (submitof the Ashtadhyayf: while on the other hand, that Patañjali is not such a blind hero:
ted to the University of Berlin early in 1914), which
was already in press a long time before the appear. worshipper as one is apt to imagine, but that the charge of captious criticism may often be laid at
ance of this article of Prof. Pathak. But since his door as well.
hearing the opinion of so experienced a scholar, like
Sir Ramkrishna Bhandarkar, that my interpretaThe paragraphs dealing with Chandra and
tion (and incidentally that of Prof. Pathak too) Bakalyana take notice of a great deal of material
though grammatically possible, was not in conso. soattered through various antiquarian journals,
nance with Sanskrit idiom, I have given up my forIndian as well as Continental. Some of the state.
mer view and hold now that the couplet in questi. ments about the Jaina bakatAyana call forth oom
on is onpable of an interpretation different from ment. Dr. Belvalkar accepta unreservedly
the one I gave to it. However, if Prof. Pathak theory propounded by Prof. Pathak in some.
adheres to the view that the verse in question must what longthy article entitled " Jain Sakatayana,
bo interpreted in the way in which he doos, it contemporary with Amoghavarsha I" (ante,
would be diffoult to dislodge him from his stand. Vol. 43, p. 206 ff.), containing copious quotations
point. But ovon granting that the Professor's ex. from all kinds of works, which speaks for the
planation is correct, his identification of the author erudition of the author but leaves the mind of
of the Amoghavritti with Bakatayana is by no the reader in unutterable confusion as to the
means oortain. For in substantiating this, Prof. issues involved and the solutions proposed. In this artiolo Prof. Pathak elaborates the theory
Pathak relies mainly upon the identity of a large that the Jaina bakatAyana wroto both the text
portion of the text of the Chintamani and the Amoand the commentary of the Amoghauri
Jhaoritdi, and attaches a totally wrong value to
which was composed in the reign of Amoghavarsha I.
this siroumstance. It is evident that, depending between Baka 736 and 789. This statement involv
merely on the similarity of the two commentaries, two independent issues: (1) that Sakatayana
it would be unsafe to conolude that the " extensive was the author of the Amoghavritti apd (2)
commentary" abridged by Yakshavarman must the Amoghavritti was written in the reign of
have been the Amoghavritti and can be no other Amoghavarsha L The second of these proposi.
The Jainas are such ardent copyists and have at all tions I shall leave aside for future consideration and times exhibited such an utter lack of originality, restriot myself for the present to an examination that it would novor do to lose sight of - in their case
