Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 2.djvu/109

 March, 1873.] CORRESPONDENCE, &c. 95 sfttra tells us that the termination ka applied to the names of objects, in the sense of images of those objects, is dropped in cases when the images enable one to earn his livelihood, but are not saleable. Upon this Patanjali observes that, because tho word and VUdkhah (in which the termination ka is dropped) are not valid. Why not ? Because the Mauryas, desirous of obtaining gold, used, or applied to their purpose, i.e., sold, objects0 of wor¬ ship. Since, then, these (viz., images of S'iva, &c.) were sold by them, they were panya, or * saleable,’ aud hence the termination ka should not be drop¬ ped. It may not be dropped in those cases (i.e., the proper forms must be STvaka, &c.), says Patanjali, but it is dropped iu the case of those images which are now used for worship. This interpretation of the passage is consistent and proper. Prof. Weber understands it to mean, that the only cases in which the rule about the dropping of the termination does not apply, are those of images with which the Mauryas were concerned. But that it is inapplicable to all images that are saleable, is clear from the passage itself, and the two commentaries on it. Kaiyata distinctly says that the rule does not apply to those that are sold, and gives S'ivakdn Vikrinlte as an instance. What Patanjali means to say is that the termination ka should be applied to the names of the images sold by the Mauryas, according to Panini’s rule ; but the rule is set aside in this case, and the wrong forms S'iva, Skanda, and Vis'Akha are used. Nagoji- bhatta expressly states—tatra pratyayasnravanam ishtameveti vadan sutrasyoddharanam dars’ayati (i. e.} saying that the use of the termination there is necessary, he points out an instance of the rule). Now, in all this there is not only nothing to show that Panini had the images sold by the Mauryas in view, but that the names of those images violate his rule. Dr. Goldstucker’s interpretation of this passage is also not correct. In the next place Prof. Weber thinks that the word AchArya in such expressions as pas'yati tvdehanyah, occurring in the MahAbhAshya, applies to Patanjali. It appears to me that Prof. Weber has overlooked the context of these passages. In all these cases tho AchArya meant is clearly PAnini, and not Patanjali. I will here brieily examine two or three of the passages referred to by the Professor, for I have no space for more. In the first of these, the question Patanjali discusses is this :—Which n is it that is used in the term an occurring in the sfttra ur an raparah, i. e., does an here mean only a, i, and u, or all the vowels, semi-vowels, and hf He answers by saying that the n in this case is clearly the first, and not the second, that is, that which is at the end of the shtra a, i, un, and archdh. t Antyulvad, the reading in Ballautyne’s Mahabhashya, is hence an signifies only the vowels a, i, and u. And why is it to be so understood ? The sfttra ur an raparah means, when an is substituted for ri, it is always followed by r, that is, if, for instance, you are told in a sfttra to substitute a for ri, you should substitute not a alone, but ar. Now, the reason why, in this stttra, an signifies the first three vowels only, is that there is no other significate of the more comprehensive term an, that is, no other vowel or any semi-vowel or h which is ever substituted for ri. “ Why not ? there is,” says the objector. One instance brought forward by him is explained away, and another that he adduces is Matrinam. In this case, by the sfttra ndmi, a long vowel, i. e., ri, is substituted for the short ri. Hi is a significate of the more comprehensive an, and not of the less comprehensive. Hence, then, the objector would say the an, in tho sfttra ur an, &c., is the more com¬ prehensive one. But, says the siddhantx, this is not a case in which the substitute has an r added on to it. Does it follow from PAnini’s work itself that no r is to be added ? For aught we know, PAnini may have meant that r should be added in this case also. Now, the evidence from Panini for this is iu the sfitra rita iddhdtoh. 1 This is the reason,’ says the siddh&nti, 1 why the word dhdtu is put in the sfttra,—that in such cases as Matrinam and Pitrinam, which arc not dhdtus, ir may not be sub¬ stituted for the long ri. If the long vowel substi¬ tute in Matrinam had an r following it, it would not be necessary to put the word dhdtu in this shtra, for MAtrir would not then be an anga or basef ending in ri, and such bases only are intended in the sfttra rita iddhdtoh. The use of the word dhdtu then shows that “ the AchArya sees that in Matrinam, &c., the long substitute has not an r following it, and hence he uses the word dhdtu in the sfttra.” | Now, it is evident from this that the AchArya is Panini, for the AchArya is spoken of as having put the word dhdtu in the sfttra for a certain purpose. Tho author of the sfttras being Panini, the Acharya meant must be he himself. In the same manner, in the passage at page 196 (Ballant. edition), PAnini is intended, for the AchArya is there spoken of as having put t after ri in the sfitra urrit. Similarly, in page 197, the AchArya is repre¬ sented as having used n twice in the pratyAhAra sfttras. The author of these sfttras, then, is meant there. And I may say that, so far as I have seen the BhAshya, the word AchArya used in this way applies either to Panini or KatyAyana, and Patanjali never speaks of himself as AchArya. Thirdly.—Prof. Weber’s interpretation of the vAr- tika parokshecha loka,&c., is different from Dr. Gold¬ stiicker’s and mine. But he will s< e that our interpre¬ tation is confirmed by Kaiyata and NAgojibhatta. He seems to take paroksham in the sense of the ‘past.’ wrong or not good. It ought to be anantyatvdd, as in the new Banaras edition. X Pas'yatitvacharyo nAtra raparatvam bhavati tatodha- tu agrahanm karoti.
 * unsaleable’ is used, such forms as S'leak, Skandah,
 * Tbe reading in the Banaras edition is archyuh, and not