________________
Vol. XXV, 2002 SARASVATĪKANTHABHARAŅ...
101 Sīradeva, e.g. adistād acah, pūrvasya (49). One also finds the maxims of Bhāsya which have not been brought under special treatment, such as nānistārtha śāstrapravittih (123). A few others make appearance unprecedented, such as the last but one, abhidhānalaksaņāh krt-taddhitasamāsāh (133) which summarises a point of view often expressed by the commentators.57
Commenting on the series of exceptional sūtras in between III. 2.62-68, 7388. related to composition (samāsa), he says, “This shows the considerable part of novelties, which the grammar of Bhoja provides. Novelties in the sense of relative term, because the vrtti of Candragomin, much earlier to the SKĀ, gives in the long commentary on the sūtra cărthe (II.2.48) most of the examples cited in the (Dandanātha) vrtti or those resulting from the teachings of the sūtras of Bhoja."58
7. Article of Robert Birwé (1964)
An excellent article entitled 'Nārāyaṇa Dandanātha's Commentary on Rules III.2.106-121 of Bhoja's Sarasvatikanthābharana' of Robert Birwé has appeared in the Journal of American Oriental Society, Vol. 84, 1964, pp. 150-162. The article is mainly meant for providing an alternative to the missing commentary on many rules of the sūtras under the above title. Nārāyana Bhatta quotes in his Prakriyāsarvasva, a commentary on Pāṇini's grammar, numerous rules from Bhoja's SKĀ, among them the rules Bh III.2.106-121. Besides Nārāyana Bhatta's commentary there is another one-the Kāśikā-manuscript No. 2440 of the India Office Library (cf. J. Eggeling, Catalogue of the Skt MSS in the Library of India Office, Vol. II, p. 159, No. 991, 992 = Ind. Off. Lib. Nos. 2440, 2441. The Ms, in Devanagari characters, has been written between 1630-1632 A. D.) on Rule P. II.1.72: mayūravyarnsakādayaśca. It is a unique fact that this Ms comments a Pāṇinian sūtra by quoting rules from a non-Pāņinian grammar and a commentary thereon. Since this commentary is, moreover, partly missing in the Trivandrum edition of Bhoja, it deserves to be published.
First quoting, on pp. 153-155, the vrtti of the above Ms, Dr. Birwé discusses in section 11, p. 155, the possible author of this Ms. In his opinion it must be Dandanātha. In section 12, pp. 155-158, he has attempted to edit and reconstruct the missing portions of Dandanātha's vịtti on Bhoja's rules III.2.106-121. In sections 13-17, pp. 159-162, he has discussed the date of Dandanātha. With the help of a comparative study of the Dandanātha's commentary on Bh.I.3.197 and the Hemacandra's auto-commentary called Bșhadvrtti on Haima sūtra V.1.52,
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
