________________
19
Malayagiri explains it otherwise. Stating the sūtra lopah aranye' and explaining it Malayagiri writes : idänin'-sabd asya lopaḥ aranye iti yogavibhāgāt ādeń i kārasya lope no naḥ iti nakārasya nalve ca dānim iti rūpar bhavati / taduktam “lopa idānim'-śabde yogavibhāgāt iha ådeh syāt ". Here Malayagiri suggests that to explain dānim' it is not necessary to take recourse to the technique of vyatyaya. The sülra under consideration and its explanation by Malayagiri clearly suggest that Malayagiri has composed a Praksta Vyakaraņa also.
Moreover, in the vytti on the Matthāsūtra Malayagiri seems to refer to the Vivaraṇa written by him
wn Sabdānusāsana's; it is lost to us. It is strange that we do not-eT: ren the name of this Vivarana mentioned anywhere in the whol
"ana literature.. Again, in the vyttis of Malayagiri one co ticu the unädisātras that are not traceable to any of the existing utefáfag From this we may infer that he might have composed an Uņa.
na. It is also highly probable that Malayagiri wrote Lingānuśásana 1997räätupārāyaṇa. But it is unfortunate that none of these works is avail to us. Hence, I earnestly request the scholars to discover his other w*
- Bechardas J. Doshi
os
28. vyavasthāpitaś ca ayam arthaḥ svopajñaśabdanusāsanavivarane iti /
Prajñāpan&ortti, P. 250 vistaratastu svo pajñaśabdanušāsanavivarane / Ibid, p. 251.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
