________________
REVIEWS AND NOTICES
59
nii ghantava il y ácakşale does give an impression that Yāska was not the author of the Nighantu. It indicates that the activity of compiling the samāmnaya was completed in the past and that people, in the course of time, had come to call the samāmnāya by the name nighantus. (Cf. Durga : nitūdha hiyan etasmin chabdasamudaye samjñety abhiprāyah). On the other hand it would be possible to reconcile Yāska's statement in 7.3 -- yat tie sarvijñanabhūtarı syut pradhanyasluti tat samamane ---- with the above conclusion by restricting its scope to the daivatakūnda of the Nighanțu and by not making it applicabie to the first two kandas as well.
The author has discussed at some length the question of Yaska's date. It is indeed difficult to agree with him when he considers Yāska to be not only older than Piņini but to have lived in the age preceding the Mahābhārala war (p. 79). Although the author has spoken very disparagingly about those who have at times agreed with Western scholars, the reviewer cannot bul recommend to the author to weigh carefully the arguments put forward by P. Thicme (1935, 1958) in support of his view that Yaska is posterior to Panini.
On page 10, the author says that the word samāmriya etymologically means "traditionally handed down wrillen document" ("paramparā prāpta lekha"). But how can this be true when we know that the ancient Sanskrit texts were preserved for a long time only in oral tradition ?
On p. 65, the author lists certain etymologies for which he feels that Yiiska has relied merely on the similarity of meaning without paying any regard to the similarity of sound. But can we really say this when under this head the author lists such clymologies as putra < purut + Vira, alatına <alam + (a) Viru, samudra < sam t (abhi) +. V dne-?
On p. 425, the author understands the Nirukta terms ekaparva and aneka parva (2.2) as referring respectively to the laddhita and the saināsa. It is not quite clear why he does so. Yāska here is obviously taking note of the taddhila forms and the compounds both of which could be of 'one joint' or 'more-than-one-joint': Skanda-Maheśvara have clearly stated : "nätra yathisankhyam vivaksitam/ kim tarhi/ ubhayam ubhayatra/ parva sandhih". It is true that Yăska does not give examples of anekaparva secondary formations; but he does give examples of eka parva compounds (tāja-puruşa) and anekaparva compounds (kalyāna-varna-rupa).
On p. 431, the author points to Yāska's use of the Vedic root bhr- for the derivation of bhara and bhrāty and y grabh- for the derivation of garbha
2. It is not necessary to interpret parran as pula as is done by Durga. Skanda-Mahe. svara have correctly explained it as sandhi.
Madhu Vidyā/621
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
