________________
18
syāt" and immediately after this comment he gives two instances, viz. kytaḥ and kytavān. These two instances in no way fit in the context. In their place there should be 'akyta' and 'akythäh'. This seems to be a slip of pen on the part of the copyist.
2. In the sūtra 'rvarna-sri-ūrnunah kiti' tbe word kiti' actually occurs but in the vytli, where its mention is also necessary, it does not occur. This suggests that the copyist has here omitted it by mistake. Hence, we should include it in the vytti and read 'vihitasya kitaḥ pratyayasya' in stead of simply · vihitasya pratyayasya'.
3. In the sūtra "kytyasca saktau' (Krdanta, 4, 96 ) the word saptami' follows from the 91st sätra and thus the sūtra enjoins the * saptami kriyāpadavibhakti'. Yet the vytti on this sūtra is: pañcami ca bhavati'. This means that the copyist has made a mistake here and written pañcami’ in place of 'saptami'.
Mistakes of this type are many and the editor has discussed them in the foot-notes.
THE PURPOSE OF WRITING A NEW GRAMMAR
MALAYAGIRI’S SABDĀNUŠĀSANA 1 Somebody might raise a question as to why Malayagiri should write a new grammar when so many were in existence even before he wrote his own. The answer to this is that an author is free to write whatever he likes. Or, Malayagiri might have thought that one should use one's own sūtras to explain the usages occuring in the vyttis one has written. And hence in order to explain the usages occuring in the vyttis written by himself Malayagiri might have written a new grammar in spite of the fact that there were many grammars even before he wrote his own.
HAS MALAYAGIRI COMPOSED PRĀRĶTA GRAMMAR ? · Malayagiri uses the aphorisms of his own Sabdānuśasana to explain the sanskrit usages. Similarly, to explain the prākrit usages he uses the aph. orisms from Prāksta Lakşana of Paņini; sometimes he uses the aphorisms of Prāksta Lakşaņa without mentioning that they are from Praksta Laksaņa. But it is interesting to note that some prakyta satras are traceable to none of the extant Prākšta grammars. Hence we are constrained to conjecture that they are from Malayagiri's own Präkşta Grammar which is lost to us. Other findings corroborate our conjecture. Ac. Haribhadra uses the word dāņin' in the second part of his Dharmasangrahaņi (găthā, 1322, p. 430 ). Ac. Hemacandra recognises dānim' as a correct prākyta word. His sūtra is : idānimo dānim' (VIII. 4. 277). In the comment on this sätra he writes: vyatyayāt präktte' pi, annam dānim bohim'. But Ac.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
