________________
108
INDIAN ANTIQUARY
not the remote, but the very near-possibility of their both having copied from a common source. The Jaina grammarians especially vie with each other in carrying this tendency to a nauseating degree. In evidence I need only point out that not merely the Amoghavṛitti and the Chintamani, but along with them also the Ripasiddhi of Dayâpåla and the Prakriyasamgraha of Abhayachandra Sûrî, have in common not only short pieces of commentary on individual sutras, but contain even lengthy portions of the text which are little more than exact reproductions of each other. . Under these circumstances it is evident that it would be fatal to conclude arbitrarily that any one out of the above-mentioned works was a copy of any other chosen at random.
This may be said to be the negative side of the question. But a fact which speaks positively against this theory is supplied by Prof. Pathak himself on the very first page of the article in question. There the author of the Amoghavritti, after commenting on the Mangala stanza at the
beginning of the Sakatayana satras, adds by way of ntroducing the praty@hara-sutras the following:
evam krita-mangala raksha-vidhanaḥ paripurnam alpagrantham lagh-Cpayam sabdánusasanam sastramidam maha-framana-samghadhipatir bhagavan Acharyaḥ sakatayanaḥ prárabhate.
The author of the commentary thus refers to Sakaṭâyana with the words The revered Master (Grammarian) Sakata yana! This, I think, is the strongest positive argument in favour of rejecting the identification of Sakatayana with the author of the Amoghavritti. I am well aware that Indian authors are in the habit of referring to themselves
in their own works in the third person. A well. known instance is that of Vishnugupta, the author
of the Arthasastra, subscribing his opinions with the words: Kautilyaḥ iti. But it will have to be admitted that there is a world of difference be
tween the emphatic personal note struck by the words iti Kautilya!, added at the end of an epigrammatic saying, and the boastful self-praise conveyed by the bhagvan-acharyaḥ Sakalayanaḥ attributed to Sakaṭâyana. I hold that it will not be possible to find within the range of the whole of the Sanskrit literature a parallel for the alleged instance of an author referring to himself as the "revered master," or with like words.
[MAY, 1917
The second point brought forth as evidence by Prof. Pathak, viz., the explicit statement of Chidâ nanda Kavi to the effect that Sakatayana is the author of the Amoghavritti has at first sight the appearance of being more reliable. But it must be remembered that although Chidananda Kavi is nearer to our grammarian than we by something like two centuries, nevertheless, he was sepa rated by a period of nine centuries from the pro. bable date of Sakaṭayana, and is likely to have been informed as to who the real author of the Amoghavritti was, not any better than we at the present day. Until, therefore, some fresh and unequivo cal evidence is brought to bear on the question, the authorship of this commentary will, in my opi nion, continue to be an unsolved problem.
To turn to other matters. At p. 69 we read: "He [scil. Kielhorn] inclined to the view that it was some modern Jain writer, who has presented his own grammatical labours under the auspicies of a revered name, carefully trying to follow the views attributed to him in ancient works and possibly having for its basis some of the teachings of the earlier Sakaṭayana." Dr. Belvalkar seems to have confounded the opinions of Kielhorn and Burnell. It was the latter (and not Kielhorn) who looked upon the Sakaṭayanatabdánulásana as an enlarged edition by a Jaina of a grammar of the pre-Paninean Saka. tâyans, and maintained that it would be possible to reconstruct the original grammar by discriminat. ing between what is old and what is new in it. Kielhorn, however, was in no doubt, at least when his article in this journal (1887, pp. 24 ff.) appeared, as to the real state of things, viz., that
the work is an out and out modern compilation. Be that as it may, there can be no question about the name Sakatayana being a pseudonym adopted by some mcdern compiler; for, the principle on which the name is formed, viz., by the addition of the suffix -dyana to the strengthened form of the protonym, had long fallen into disuse at the time when the Jaina must have lived. Names
such as Bâdarayana, Katyayana, Saka Ayana, etc., belong to quite a different epoch of the history of Indian names.
V. S. SUKTHANKAB.
