PANINfYA SIKSA OR THE SIKSA VEDANGA ascribed to PANINI (being the most ancient work on Indo-Aryan Phonetics) Critically edited in all its Five Recensions with an Introduction, Translation and Notes together with its two Commentaries BY MANOMOHAN GHOSH, M.A., Kavyatirtha, University . of Calcutta zj fa frd \J Pc5jy> IQho. CENT1U», AllOfiAKOLOGIOAJ UUKPio. PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA 1938 BY THE SAME EDITOR 1. Abhinayadarpafa of Nandikes>ara, a manual of gestures used in ancient Indian dance and drama (Calcutta Sanskrit Series, No, V). 2. Catura^gadIpika of gulapani, a manual of four-handed dice-chess (Calcutta Sanskrit Series, No. XXI). 3. KarpuramaAjarI (Rajasekhara's Prakrit play), critically edited with an Introduction and Notes (to be shortly out). \ A H\i; - ' - D4SU1L *>j%^ 7*J7r,, *,»»## »*#»•••><»•••• PRINTED IN INDIA PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY BHUPRNDRALAL BANBRJEE AT THB CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY PBESS, SENATE HOUSE, CALCUTTA Beg. No. 903B, June, 1938— b. \ it DEDICATED TO the Sacred Memory of the late Sir ASUTOSH MOOKERJEE ■i CONTENTS page Preface i Bibliography iii Symbols and Abbreviations vi Introduction 1. G-eneral ix 2. Six Vedangas xix 3. Siksa XXV 4. Prati£akhyas xxxi 5. Panimya Siksa xl 6. Commentaries to the PS. lv Sanskrit Text of the PininIya-Siksi 1. Reconstructed Text 1 2. The Agni-Puraiia Eecension 4 3. With the Panjika 7 4. With the Siksaprakas'a 23 5. The Yajus Recension ... 35 6. The Rk Recension 39 Appendix Varna-sutras of Candragomin 45 Translation and Notes 49 Index 81 Addenda et Corrigenda 84 P.R.EF ACE The Paniniya-Sihja ascribed to Panini, the great gramma- rian of ancient India, is known as the Siksa-Vediinga. It was eighty years ago that W,eber published a critical edition of this work in his Indische Studien (IV). This edition has long been out of print and besides this later researches and accession to new materials have made it necessary that the work should be edited afresh. Hence the present edition has been prepared. The im- portance of this work has been discussed in the Introduction. But one aspect of the critical study of the text of the Pariiniya-Silcsa which has not been noticed there is that from such a study we can more or less clearly understand how literary documents of ancient India like the present text have in course of their trans- mission to the posterity added to their bulk through interpolation in successive periods. Eighteen couplets in which the original Paniniya-Siksa was in all probablity composed had added to them in the present day text no less than forty-two couplets. This fact puts us on our guard against taking every syllable of an an- cient work as of equal antiquity and we are inclined to turn our attention to higher criticism which has been attempted in this volume. The present editor however does not claim infallibility for himself and will consider himself to be amply paid for his labours if scholars will give him the credit for an honest attempt in pursuance of a well-known principle. For various reasons the printing of this volume took nearly three years during which some amount of work related to the subject has been done. I have tried as far as has been possible for me to utilize or notice such work in the list of addenda. If however any important writing in this line has escaped my notice I should apologise to its author. 11 PREFACE My best thanks are due to the authorities of the Calcutta University for giving me every facility in the work and to my esteemed friend Pandit Amarendramohan Tarkatirtha of the Skt. MSS. Department, Calcutta University, for kindly helping me in reading the proof of the text portion, and also to the autho- rities of the India Office, the State Library of Berlin, of Munich, the University of Lund for lending MSS. or supplying rotographic copy of them. It is with great pleasure that I should mention here that the rofcograph of the Siksa-pafljika supplied by the University of Lund came as a gift to the Calcutta University. And finally I should oiler my most grateful thanks to my teacher Prof. Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterji for his kindly making valuable suggestions while he went through this volume in MS. as well as in proof. It however goes without saying that for all views expressed in the work the responsibility remains entirely mine. Diversity of Calgutta j ManOMOHAN GHOSH 'June, 1938 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Sanskrit Texts Aitareya Brahmana, ed. M. Han g, Bombay, 1863. Amoghanandinl Siksa (Siks^samgraha, pp. 93-106). Anantabhatta's Commentary to the Vajasaneyi Pratisak hya, : ed. Yenkatarama S bar ma, Madras, 1934. Bhagavad-glta (Srimad). Bhattojidiksita—Sabdakaustubha, Part I, Benares, 1933. Siddhantakaumudi, ed. G a d g i 1, Bombay, 1904 and ed. Pandit Shivadatta, Venkateswar Press. Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, ed. Sitanatha Tattvabhtisana, Calcutta, 1928. Brhad-devata, ed. A. A. M a c d o n e 1 1. HOS. Ohandogya Upanisad, ed. Sltauatha Tattvabhusari.a, : Calcutta, 1925. Gautami Siksa (Siksa-samgraha, pp. 450-55). Kasika-vrfcti on Panini (Ohowkhamba ed.), Benares, 1898. Kautiliya Arthas'astra, ed. J. Jolly, Lahore, 1923. Lomas'l Siksa (Siksa-sarngraha, pp. 456-62). Mahabhasya (Pauiniya), ed* F\ K i e 1 h o r n, Bombay, 1892. Mahiseya's Commentary to the Taittiriya Pratisakhya, ed. Venkatarama S harm a, Madras, 1930. Manduki Siksa ( Siksa- samgraha, pp. 463-78). Manusmrti, ed. J. Jolly, London, 1887. Mlmamsa-Sutra (Purva). Mundaka Upanisad, ed. J. Hertel, Leipzig, 1924. Naradlya Siksa (Siksa-sarngraha, pp. 394-449). Natya^astra of Bharata (Chowkhamba ed.), Benares, 1929. iv THE PANINIYA SIESA Nirukta, ed. Laksman Sarup, Lahore, 1C27. Nirukta, with Durga's Commentary (Bombay Sid. Series). Paniniya Astadhyayl, ed. by Devendrakumara Bandyo- p a d h y a y a, Calcutta, 1909. ,, Siksn, ed. Weber {Indische Studien, IV). Parasarl Siksa (&ksa-samgraha, pp. 52-71). P i n g a 1 a's Chandah-sutra, ed. Kunjaviharl T a r k a- s i d d h a n t a, Calcutta, 1914. Prasthanabheda, ed. A. Weber (Indische Studien, I). Ektantra-Vyakarana, ed. A. C. B u r n e 1 1, Mangalore, 1879. ,, ,, ed. Suryakanta S a s t r I, Lahore, 1933. Egveda Pratisakhya, ed. Pasupati gastri, Calcutta, 1927. ,, ed. Mangal Lev Shastrl, (Vol.11), Allahabad, 1931 ; (Vol. Ill), Lahore, 1936. Sabarasvami's Bhasya on Mimamsa Sutras (Bibliotheca Indica ed.) S a y a n a' s Introduction to the Egveda, ed. P. Peterson, Bombay, 1890. SiddhSnta Ivaumudi (see Bhattojidlksita) . • Siksa-samgraha (grimad Yajfiavalkyad i-maharsi-pranlta), ed. Yugalakisora "V y a s a, Benares, 1893. Svaranku£a-Siksa (Siksa-samgraha, pp. 161-63). Svarastaka-Siksa (Siksa-saipgraha, pp. 362-68). Taittirlya Pratisakhya, ed. W. D. Whitne y in JAOS, Vol. 9. Taittiriya Upanisad, ed. Sltanatha Tattvabhusana, Calcutta, Vajasaneyi Pratisakhya, ed. A. Weber (Indische Studien, IV) ; ed. Jivananda Vidyasagara, Calcutta. Vakyapadiya of B h ar t rh ar i. Varnaratna-pradTpika (Siksfi-sarpgraha, pp. 117-37). Yajnavalkya-{3iksa (Siksa-samgraha, pp. 1-35). 2. General Acta Orientalia. Belvalkar, S. K., Systems of Sanskrit Grammar, Poooa, 1915. BIBLIOGKAPHY v Bloom field, M. and Edgerton, Vedic Variants, Vol. 2, Philadelphia, 1932. B loch, Jules, L'lndo-Aryen, Paris, 1934. Chatterji, S.K., Origin and Development of Bengali Lan- guage, Calcutta, 1926. Charpentier, J., Uttaradhyayana Sutra, Uppsala, 1922. Dasgupta, S. N., A History - of Indian Philosophy, Cambridge. Dayananda, Svaml, Vedanga-Praka^a, Allahabad. Deussen, P., Philosophy of Upanisads. G-eiger, W., Pali Literatur und Sprache. G-hosh, M., 'Chando-Vedanga of Pingala 5 in IHQ. ,, 'Maharastrl, a late phase of SaurasenI' in JDL. ,, 'Pratigakhya and Vedic Sakhas' in IHQ. Hertel, J., Mundaka Upanisad, Liepzig, 1924. Indian Historical Quarterly. Journal of the American Oriental Society. ,, ,, Bombay Branch of the Koyal Asiatic Society. ,, ,, Department of Letters, Calcutta University. ,, ,, Eoyal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Keith, A. B., Keligion and Philosophy of Upanisads. Translation of the Yajurveda. Liebich, B., Panini, Leipzig, 1891. Zur Einfuhrung der indischen einheimischen Sprachwissenschaft, Heidelberg, 1919. Liiders, H., Das Vyasa Siksa, Kiel, 1895. Mac don ell, A. A., India's Past, Oxford, 1927. Max Mii Her, E., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, LondoD, 1860. Oldenberg, H., Buddha, His Life, His Doctrines, His Order, Calcutta, 1927. Proceedings of the Fourth Oriental Conference, Allahabad. Sarup, Lakshman, Translation of the Nirukta, Londo^ 192L vi THE PANINIYA SIKSI S kold, Harms, Papers oq Panini, London, 1926. . ,, The Nirukta: Its place in Indian Literature, its Etymologies, London, 1926. Thumb and Hirt, Grammatik der Sanskrit, Heidelberg, 1930. Thieme, Paul, Panini and the Veda, Allahabad, 1935. Vaidya, C. V., History of Sanskrit Literature, Poona, 1930. Varma, Siddheswar, Critical Studies in the Phonetic Obser- vation of Indian Grammarians, London, 1929. Vidyalankara, S., Jivanlkosa (A Dictionary of Hindu Mythology in Bengali), Calcutta, 1935. Wackernagel, J., Alt-indsche Grammatik, I, Gotingen, 1896. Weber, A., Indische Studien. W i 1 s o d , Philological Lectures . Winternitz, M., History of Indian Literature, Vol. I, Cal- cutta, 1926. .,, Geschichte der indischen Literatur, Band III, Leipzig, 1923. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft. SYMBOLS and ABBBEVIATIONS, etc. Thick types (Devanagari) in pp. 3-6„ 35-44- and asterisks in pp. 7-34 and Arabic numerals on the left of all these pages will indicate the position of the reconstructed text in different recensioms. An asterisk will indicate a spurious passage. When put before the first hemistich the asterisk relates to the entire couplet and it sometimes relates to an entire couplet together with a third hemistich. An Arabic numeral appearing on the left margin between a pair of double dandas (e.g., Ill 3 ll) signifies the position of the passage in the reconstructed text, A number prefixed to hemistich relates to it and the hemistich which precedes it; numbers with 'a' and 'b' after them indicate respectively the first and the second hemistich only of a couplet in the reconstructed text. SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS vii Bigger types in the Translation have been for the transcrip- tion and translation of: passages of the P§., which have been considered original, and in Notes on them also such types have been used. A. 0.— After Christ. AP. — The Agni-Purana recension of the Paninlya-Siksa. B.C. — Before Christ. DPS. — Dayananda's Phonetic Sutras. Geschichte — G-eschichte der indischen Literatur, Band III (or "Vol. III). HOS. — Harvard Oriental Series. IAnt. — Indian Antiquary. IHQ. — Indian Historical Quarterly. JAOS. — Journal of American Oriental Society. ■ - JBRAS. — Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. JDL. — Journal of the Department of Letters,, Calcutta Univer- sity. - • JRAS, — Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Mand. S. — Manduki Siksa. Misra. — Paninlya Siksa, ed. by Pandit Kaliprasad Mis>a, Benares, Sam. 1990. Nar. &. — Naradiya-Siksa. Pnj. — The (Siksa) Panjika recension of the Paninlya Siksa. Prk. — The (Siksa) Prakasa recension of the Paninlya Siksa. PS. — Panimya-Siksa as reconstructed by the Editor (pp. 1-3). RPr. — The Rgveda-Pratisakhya. RT. — The Rk-tantra-Vyakarana. Sarma. — PaainTya Siksa, ed. Rudraprasad Sarma, Benares, 1937. SBE. (S.B.B.)— Sacred Books of the East. SS. — Siksa-samgraha. Taitt. Pr. — Taittirlya Pratisakhya. Taitt. Up. — Taittirlya Upanisad. TPr, — Taittirlya Pratisakhya. viii THE PANINIYA SIKSA Tripafchi — Patiinlya Siksa, ed. Narayan Datta Tripathi, Benares, Sam. 1990. Vaj. Pr. — Vajasaneyi Pratisakhya. VPr — Yaj. — The Yajus recension of the Paniniya Siksa. Yv. S. — The Yajilavalkya Siksa. ZDMG-. — Zeitschrift der deufcschen morgenlandischen G-esellschaf t. ^.^. — Unadi-Sutras. 5Rgf— Kgveda. W. HT. — Egveda-Pratisakhya. aftcrr — Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita. WT^t — Chandogya Upanisad. IT. fax- — Naradiya Siksa. JTT. — Paniniya Astadhyayi. 3" ■ ^T. — Brhadaranyaka Upanisad *Tg — Manusmrti. N.B.— References to the RPr. ( ^ 8 5^.) are always to the edition of Paiupati Sastn, INTRODUCTION 1 1. The Present Edition. Among the large number of works known as the Siksas 1 the Indian tradition 2 accords the ;) osition of the Vedanga Siksa to the one connected with the name of Pauini (see §28). Weber ini his edition of the Paniniya Siksa (Indische Studien, IV) has however remained silent on this point. In his History of Sanskrit Literature too he did not give any decisive opinion in the matter, but later on Max Miiller posi- tively denied the validity of the traditional notion about the PS. being a Vedanga." Since the days of Max Miiller his view has been accepted by almost all the scholars without the slightest protest. Prof. Liebich may be said to have been a notable excep- tion in this matter 4 ; for he maintains that the PS. though late in its present form, is old in its contents. This view however has received very scanty attention from scholars who are other- wise very careful. Even two very recent writers who touched the subject, Mr. C. V. Vaidya and Dr. Siddheshwar Varma, have followed the view oE Max Miiller. Of these two the opinion of Mr. Vaidya deserves special mention because he is frankly against what he considers to be a late date (c 1-00 B. C.) for the Rgveda suggested by Max Miiller, and is for 1 grl-Yaffiavalkyadi-Maharsi-pranffcalj. 'Siksa-sangraliah/ Benares, 1893; Siddh&shwar Varma, 'Critic- 1 Studies in the Phonetic Observations of Indian Grammarians, ' London, 1929, pp. 29 ff. 2 'Parasari Siksa,' 78, in the SS. ; 'Prasf-hann-bheda' in Weber's Tndi3che Studien, I, p, 16; Siddheshwar Varma, op, cit. , p. 5; Durga in the Nirukfca-vrLli. ed. Bombay Skt Series, p 24. 3 ' History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature 2 ,' p. 145. i B. Liebich, 'Zur Einluhrung in die indische einheimische Spraohwia-stmsrhifb,' II, Heidelberg, 1919, p. 20 ; M. Winternitz 'History of Indian Liter atuce,' Vol. I, p. 2cS5, footnote 3 ; also Geschichte der indischen Literatur, Vol. Ill, p. 382, footnote 1. x THE PANINIYA SIKSA placing this work as early as 4000 B. C. 1 But Mr. Vaidya does not make any effort to explain why the PS. should not be considered a genuine Vedanga belonging to the great antiquity he assigns to Panini 2 and Yaska. 3 Dr. Siddheshwar Varma however gives some arguments to prove the lateness of the P$. But these, as we shall see later on (§§25 IT.) do not seem to be based on all available materials which might have given him a different view about the age and character of the work.' 1 For he has known the PS. in three recensions only, while the work itself exists in no less that what, may be called five recensions which read together critically are to give one a better idea about the age and character of the text. There is yet another scholar who not only considers the PS. to be a late work and hence not a Vedanga, but accords the same position to a Sutra work ascribed, on very questionable grounds to Panini. 5 We shall see later on (§§ 3.1-32) why this view is untenable, and this will bring us face to face with the text-history of the PS. for which a critical edition of the work is essentially necessary. Hence no apology need be offered for undertaking such an edition of the work together with that of the two commentaries attached to its two (late) recensions. .Reasons which have led us to believe that the PS. is the original Vedanga Siksa. will be discus- sed later on (§§28-30) and as such it is-to be placed as early as Panini who in all likelihood was its author (see § 33). This being the oldest treatise on the phonetics of Old Indo-Aryan— » and possibly of Indo-European — deserves to be studied carefully for the history of the Vedic as well as Sanskrit sounds. 1 History of Sanskrit Literature, Poona, 1930, Vol. I, Section I, pp. 25-40. 2 Op. tit., Sec. Ill, p. 8. 3 Ibid, pp. 5 f. 4 The main arguments which Dr, Siddheshwar Varma adduces to show that the PS. is a not the Vedanga Siksa are as follows : (1) The PS. has no claim to be a mul&gama or source of the Prabiiakhyas, (2) Pingala, and not Panini, is the author of the PS. The first argument has been refuted in §§ 28-30, and the second in § 33. 5 Dr. Baghu Vira, 'Discovery of the Lost Phonetic Sutras of Panini' in the JRAS. , .19 31, pp. 653 ff. INTRODUCTION xi l ) . The Critical Apparatus. It has been mentioned above (§1) that the PS. is available in five recensions. Bach of these recensions again is available in MSS. or printed texts with more or less varying readings. Hence before reconstructing the PS. on the basis of different recensions we shall have to find out the most representative text of each version and its age and special characteristics. For this purpose we have consulted various MSS. and printed texts and are giving below the results together with a description of them all. (a) The Agni Parana Recension. The Agni Purana con- tains the shortest available text of the PS., which consists of 21-J couplets only. Among these AP. 16-10, 17- 21c corres- pond to PS. l-3a, 10, 4b-7a, 8-13a, 15a, t.6b, 17, 18 (see below the text of the AP. recension). The AP. recension omits one complete couplet (14) and halves of four others (7b, 13b, and 15b-16a) which the PS. in all likelihood contained. Grounds for such an assumption will be discussed below in the Notes (26a, li f 23 and 30), AP. la, 11-16, which are late additions to the PS. will also be discussed in the Notes (2, 18, 48a, 49a and 38a). Besides these twenty couplets and a half the AP. recension includes the following which may justify us to assume the existence of the AP. 3b-4a. rangas ca khe aram proktah hakaram pancamair yuktah\ antahsthabhih samayuktah 'aurasya' 'kanthya' eva sah II In this couplet we meet with the AP. 3b (italicised in the above quotation) and the two fragments of the second half of the same (put within the inverted commas) . The reading vaksye mukhe' ksaram (for rangai ca khe aram) recorded by some MSS. seems to rule out the possibility of yatha saurastrika narl, etc. (Yaj. 6), ever occurring in the place of the AP. 3b-4a. This interpolation seems to be the work of some late scribe who under the influence of the Yaj. recension supplied the reading rangat ca, etc., to the erroneously repeated AP. 3b-k. unfortunate- ly without any advantage.' Prom a consideration of the possible xii THE PANINIYA SIKSA age of the Agni Purana (c. 800 A..C.) later than Panini by much more than 1000 years we may be justified to make an assumption about its defective tradition. The representative text of the AP. recension of the PS. has been obtained from the following materials : M. The Agni Purana edited by Eajendra Lai Mitra and published in the 'Bibliotheca Indica' Series. P. The Agni Purana published from the Anandasrama, Poona. MSS. ka, kha, ga, gha and m used, for this text have been indicated by a, h, c, d and e respectively. V. The Agni Purana with Bengali translation published by the Vangavasi Press, Calcutta. (b) The Panjika Recension. As the commentary called the Siksa-Panjika does not contain the particular text, it follows, in a complete form, the Pnj. recension of the PS. had to be reconstructed to some extent conjecturally from the pratikas of passages handled in the commentary. The compiler of the catalogue of Skt. MSS, in the India Office Library, London, has wrongly considered this to be identical with the Yaj. recension. But on comparing the latter (Yaj. rec.) with this we find that in some important points the two differ. For example, unlike the Yaj. the Pnj. contains the hemistich aniisvara-yamanam ca nasika sthanam ucyate (PS. Ida) and upadhmaniya usmct ca jihvd-multya-nasike (PS. lib) and in this respect it falls in a line with the Prk. recension. Two passages (PS. 9, 10) though not explained in the Panjika seems to have existed in the text used by its author 1 (see Notes 26a and 28) and for this reason they have been included in the reconstructed text. Except these two, the Pnj. consists of 21-J couplets of which 4-19, correspond to PS. 1-18, respectively. On comparing 1 The name of the author does not occur in any MS. But Mabamahopadhyaya Pandii Shivadatta in his introduction to the Riddhanta-kaumudi (ed. Venkatesvara, Bombay, says asya iihsayah Ragliav&carya-krtarti bhaqyam jagartiti dik. Now in some MSS. thePa5.jilf§ has been called Bhasya (p. 17). It may ba that Rigbavaearya is the author of fcho Pafljika. INTRODUCTION x'm the Pdj. with the Prk. recension it appears thai the latter is an inflated version of the former. There are no sufficient data to suggest any precise date for the Pnj. recension. But it appears by no means recent. For the Panjika quotes from one of the old authorities named Audavraji of whose exact time we have no information; but as he is mentioned by the Nar. S., 1 a work, except for its interpolated passages, is as old as 200 B. 0., he was probably older than this time. He has also been mentioned in the Rk-tantra Vyakarana (Samaveda Pratis'akhya) 2 and in the $iksa~prakasa, 3 another commentary to the PS. There being no mention of Audavraji in pbonetical works which are palpably very late we may assume that at their time his work was lost and the author of the Panjika flourished possibly earlier than a time when A.'s work was still available, and such was the case with the authors of the available Ek-tantra Vyakarana and the Siksa-prakasa. 4 Now the time for the Siksa-prakaga being placed tentatively between 1000 A. C. and 1300 A. C. we may consider the lower limit to the date of the Pnj. recension as the 1200 A. C. Along with this should be considered the fact that the Agni Purana recension can be placed at the earliest in 800 A. C. Thus it appears that the Pfij. recension existed between 800 and 1.200 A. C. The representative text of this recension of the P&. has been worked out from the following MSS. and printed text. A 1 . Manuscript of the Siksa-Panjika in the Eoyal Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. 2834. A 2 , MS. of the Panjika in the same Society, No. 1169. A 8 . MS. of the Panjika in the same Society, No. 4180 C. B. The rotograph of a MS. of the same procured by the Calcutta University from the State Library of Berlin. 1 Ed. SS„ II, 8. 5. 2 Ed. Suryakanfca Sasfcri, Sutra CO. 3 Ed. SS„ p. 388. Sec also the same edited below, 4 See below on the Prak. recension. xiv THE PANINIYA SlKSA 0, The text of the Siksa-Panjika together with the PS. in its Rk recension printed in Benares, 1929 (Hariclas Skt. Series No. 10) [Mr. Suryakanta Sastri mentions one such text printed in Benares in 1387 (op. cit., introd., p. 33n.)]. But we have not seen it. From Mr. Sastri' s quotation it seems to agree with HL.]. H. A manuscript of the SiksEL-Pafijikfi from the Royal Library of Munich. This was used by M. H-aug. 1. A manuscript of the Siksfi-Panjika from the India Office Library. L. The rotograph of the Siksa Panjika presented to the Calcutta University by the University of Lund. (c) The Prahah. Recension. As was the case with the Panjika recension this also had to be reconstructed from the pratikas of the passages explained in the commentary called the Siksa-prakaSa. Having had to depend on rather imperfect materials we can never be sure that these restored texts were actually before their respective commentators. The most we can claim for these texts, is that they surely contained these particular passages in approximately the same form. But in case of the Prk. recension this claim can be admitted only subject to the limitation that the actual order in which some of the couplets occurred is not known. The Prk. passages, of the position of which in the text we are not sure, have been marked with an asterisk in the Table C, showing their relative position. This recension but for the inclusion of one hemistich (Prk. 22a) and the exclusion of one couplet (Yaj. 34) and the different order in which the different passages of the Yaj. recension have been arranged, is similar to the latter. But the confused manner in which the passages are available in the Yaj. recension gives us grounds to assume that the same were reduced to writing from memory at a time later than the composition of the Siksa- prakasa and hence we have taken it as a separate recension. The date -of the Prakas'a recension may be considered to be later than that of the Pnj. for the simple reason that the INTBODUCTION xv former is much longer than the latter and the increase in hulk has needed some time. But the Siksa Prakasa may not be earlier than the 10th century. For he seems to quote a long passage verbatim from the commentary of Visnumitra on the Rk Pratisakhya (vide infra). Now this Visnumitra seems to be a predecessor or at best a contemporary of Uvata (1100 A.C.). Besides this, from the introduction to the Siksa Prakasa wo learn that the anonymous author wrote a commentary to PiAgaJa's metrics. Now the only commentary available for the Chandah- siitras of Pingala is by Halayudha 1 who was the minister of the king Laksma.ua Sena (c, L200 A.C.) of Bengal. Hence we may tentatively assign the Prk. recension to a time about 1200 A.C. It may be that MadhusCidana Saras^ati (c. 1500 A.C), author of the Prasthana-bheda described, this recension as the p a ri c a- khandatmika and it is sure he did not mean the Rk recension, for that is ekadas a-khand&tmika (see the text below). The text of the Sikaii-prakasa or the Prakasa Recension has been edited from : L. The rotograph of a MS. from the University of Lund. Be. A version of the Prakasa printed in the Siksa-samgraha from Benares. (d) The Yajus Recension. This recension of the PS. has been carefully edited by Weber in his Indische Studien, IV, pp. 345 fL, on the basis of two MSS., B and W, of which Wis dated Samvat 1696. Occasional help from three MSS. of the Rk. recension 0, D and L has also been taken in this. For all practical purposes this edition being faultless we have adopted it leaving out its minor details. Special characteristics of this recension have already been indicated (§ 2c). (e) The Rk Recension. This recension has also been edited by Weber (Joe. cit.) on the basis of three MSS., 0, D and L. Omitting some minor details we have adopted this edition after comparing it with the following : 1 Weber places him in the second half of the lOfch century. See Ind. Stud., VII T, p. 193 ; also Winternitz, Geschichte, Bd. Ill, p. 27. xvi THE PANINIYA STKSA Oh. The PS. published along with the Siksa-Panjika from Chowkhamba, Benares, 1929. This recension is scarcely much older than the 18th century ; for MSS. of this used by Weber are all later than Saipvat 1833 and we have come across no earlier MS. This is the most inflated version of the PS. and contains nearly 60 stanzas. Only 17J among these may be taken as genuine. These are Rk 4-11, 13, 16-19, 22-23, 3840a corresponding to PS. 1-8, 9, 11-13, 14a, .15,16a, 166-18, respectively. The nature and source of the re maining 42 couplets have been discussed below (§3). 3. Reconstruction. From a very close study of its five recensions eighteen only of the couplets appear to constitute the original PS. Only fourteen among them, however, occur in all the recensions, 1 while the remaining couplets do not so occur. But on internal evidence they appear to be organically connected with the fourteen couplets common to all recensions and hence surely occurring in the original PS. Problems con- nected with them have been discussed in detail in Notes given along with the translation of the PS. Sources of more than half of the remaining forty-two couplets which we consider to be later additions to the text of the PS. have been traced to different late Siksa 2 works. Of the remaining twenty couplets the source of which we could not explore, at least eight (Rk 1-3, and 56-60, and passages corresponding to them in other recensions), can probably be credited to the editors of different recensions. The remaining twelve were, in all likelihood, taken also from some late Siksas lost to us. Grounds on which we have considered a passage or group of passages spurious or later additions have also been discussed in Notes. From 1 See the conspectus of Text- Units of the different recensions given at the end of this Introduction. 2 Oases of later giksas can to some extent be compared with those of the later Upanisads (cf. Wmternitz, History of Ind. Lit., Vol. T, p. 239). In order to give imthenticity to their own theory or practice later writeis on Vedic phonetics have called their works Siksas. These late works are nevertheless important for the study of Indo-Aryan phonetics. INTRODUCTION xvn a study of the interpolated passages it appears that the custodians of the Vedanga Siksa have at different times made desperate efforts to preserve this small treatise consisting of only eighteen couplets, from extinction. Lest it should fall out of use before later works on the subject, which for the time being gave better guidance to the reciter of the Vedic texts they culled some new materials from these and tagged them on to the PS. in different relays. Even this method though resorted to some- times were not exclusively followed. To supplement this they put it along with other works on similarly important subjects in the body of a big compilation like the Agni Purana. A case which seems to be analogous to this is the alleged interpolation of the Bhagavad-G-Ifca in the corpus of the Mahabharata. For a tabular statement of the growth * of PS. showing the distribution of genuine and interpolated passages in its different recensions, 1 see Table A. Table A, i Recensions. i j 1 Total Number of Hemisfcichs. Interpolation. Total. Traced. Un traced. j Agni Purana 43 * 13 12 1 (—1 editorial) , Paftjika 50 14 2 12 (-12 „ ) Prakaia 68 33 20 13 (-13 „ ) Yajub 6akha 2 70 35 85 20 15 (-12 „ ) Rk 6akha 120 44 41 (-16 „ ) 1 Compare with this the growth of the text of the Nirukta (Prof. L. Sarup's Introduc- tion, pp. 19-20 ; S. Sastri, Rk-tantra, Lahore, 1933, Introduction, pp. 45, 46) and of the Unadi-Sutras (Prof. G-oldstucker, P&niui : his place in Skt. Literature, London, 1861, pp. 131, 170; Reprint from Allahabad, 1914, pp. 130, 139; S. Sastri, ibid). 2 For the meaning of the Sakha see below (§§ 18ff.), xviii • THE P1NINIYA SIKSA From a study of the above table as well as the contents of the different recension we can suggest the mutual relation of the different recensions as follows : Uf-text of the P£>. A P. Re.c. | ~| | | | Kk. Rac. Pfij, Ret. Prk. Ree. ¥u,j. Bee. Six Vedi:&gas 4. Before taking up the history of growth and deve- lop meat of individual Vedangas it would be proper to enquire into conditions which made it obligatory for the Vedic priests to admit as a part; of the sacred lore six subjects, the study of which was necessary either for the recitation, the understand- ing or the proper sacrificial employment of the Vedic hymns. Materials for such a study are indeed very poor. We have few relics of that early age when the Vedic seers were composing songs of praise or adoration to their deities with the least idea of their later complicated use in various rituals and ceremo- nies. Hence, how and when the simple utterances of the early Indo-Aryans who entered India most probably sometime after the beginning of the second mellenniumB. O., 1 began to be considered sacred and meant specially to be used in sundry rituals, will probably remain a mystery for all time to come. But it will not be out of place to make here the following a priori considera- tions. 5. As a great many of- the subsequent ramifications observ- able in the Vedic cult (e, g. f those in the Brahmanas and the Sutras) have been found to be non-existent among Indo-European people of other countries it may be assumed that a great part of them owe their origin to the influence of some widespread pre- Vedic cult or cults of India. 2 In case of the Old Indo-Aryan 1 Of. Winternitz, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 299ff.,310; ZDMGL, 1934, pp.*23* *24* Thumb-Hirt, 'Handbuch des Slcfc.' I. Teil : Grammatik, Zweifce Auflage, §27 and Naohtrag to the same. Prof A. B. Keith holds a different view. See 'The Religion and Philosophy of the Ved l and Upani?ads," H S., 1925, p. 7. , 2 S. K. Chafcterj i, 'Origin and Development of the Bengali Language,' pp. 26, 31f. also c/. Keith, op, cit., p. IS. xx THE PANINiYA SIKSi . Jangaage a similar pre-Aryan influence has already been postulated .to account for the development of cerebral sounds as well as a portion of the Old Indo-Aryan vocabulary. 1 If such an influence played any considerable part in giving shape to the Vedic religion it may be said to have practically finished a great part of its work about 1000 B. C. 2 as far as the Indian Midland was concerned ; for a very long time must have been necessary for the pre-Aryan Indians to get reconciled with the hostile new- comers and ultimately to accept their faith and culture. Now the ethnic constitution of the modern Indians who profess adherence to the Vedas shows that a great majority of them has come from non- Aryan stocks. Thus one will probably be justified to assume here a conversion— may be unconscious — of the non-Aryan people to Vedic religion, which was responsible for such a state of things ; and such a conversion in all likelihood began to progress with considerable force about 1000 B.C. when the Vedic people and their ways were in all probability not only no longer displeasing but also was becoming attract- ive to the pre-Aryan people of the land, and a progressive section of them had already been Aryanised as far as their religion was concerned. And even some blood-mixture with the new-comers is much likely to have occurred at this stage. It is quite possible that the six Ved'uigas partly grew up and partly took shape under the circumstances demanded by an effort on the part of these progressive non-Aryans and their descendants to acquire thoroughly the Vedic culture, a great deal of which was essentially conuected with religious practices. 6. It is conceivable that these neo-Vedic people con- sisting of Aryanised non-Aryans as well as mixed Aryans took more than ordinary interest in Aryan faith and culture,, and 1 S.~K. Chatterji, op. tit., pp. S7f., 1701 2 Oldenberg places the period of the Br&hmurias aod Upanisads (of course old ones) between 9 JO B. C.-7J0 B. C. (Buddha, : his Life, his Doctrines, etc., Calcutta, 1927, pp. 14-16J. The Brahtnanas are characteristically tbe product of that pex*iod in which primitive Indo- Aryans were very much influenced by pre-Aryan8 of India, INTRODUCTION xxi later on their descendants began to get ashamed of their extra- Aryan origin and wished very much to pass themselves off as thorough-bred Aryans. 1 But a great obstacle in their way was indeed the colour of their skin as well as their language and customs. For the time being difficulties seemed insuperable, but they did not remain so for a long time. Means were gradually discovered for concealing their ethnic and cultural origin. 7. The famous Purusa-sukta (Rgveda, X. 90) having been revealed (c. 1000 B. C.) the question of colour became explicable without reference to any ethnic mixture though such a thing had in a manner had to be recognized later in a rather queerly formulated Vartiasankara theory of the Dharma-sutras to explain the existence of different non- Aryan groups which entered rather late within the pale of the society organised in the Varqdirama principle. 8. The language and customs were from their very nature ill suited to remain hidden under the Vedic revelation. Habits whether of speech or of other matters die indeed very hard. Though the exigencies of their religious rites compelled them to recite the Vedic mantras and to use the sacred tongue, the neo- Aryans surely used in their family or tribal circles their traditional speech while during their intercourse with the Aryans a jargon • consisting of varying degrees of Aryan and non-Aryan was prominent. This state of things, as can be easily imagined, was detrimental to the purity of the Vedic speech and occasion- ally gave rise to mlecchiba (corrupted) speech condemned so much by the custodians of the Vedic culture (Brahmanena na mlec- chitam mi, etc. Patanjali, ed. Kielhorn, Vol. I, p. 2). Thus the necessary incentive was furnished to contemporary leaders of the Vedic religion, who surely included neo-Aryans too, for studies in phonetics (tiksa), metrics (chandas), grammar (vyakaraiiCL) and 1 A case parallel to this is to be found iu the attempt on the part of some descendants of non- Anglo- Saxon people of America to pass as people of Anglo-Saxon origin. xxii THtf .PIN INI YA SIKH A vocabulary (nigkaniu). 1 The contents of the Kalpa-sutni which branched off later on to $raufca, 2 Grhya and Dharma-sutras may also be said to have received attention at that time when the neo Vaidikas were trying to assume the appearance of thorough- bred Aryans and for this purpose they required a set of codified rules by followiug which they could be trained in Vedic ways. Oldenberg who does not pay any attention to the ethnic com- position of the Vedic people seems to consider that a training in the Vedic ways was a priestly imposition on the other Aryan classes. (See 'Buddha, His Life, His Doctrines, His Order,' Calcutta, 19^7, pp. 14-15.) As, for various ceremonies the observation of correct date and days of the moon was already a necessity even before the conscious Aryanizing activities began, the study of astronomy {jyotisa) commenced earlier ° ; but it is probable that its results were not gathered in a written treatise till later when some of the earliest available texts of other Vedangas have been composed. 9. One of the earliest references to the six angas of the Veda occurs in the Sadvimsa Brahmana of the Samaveda 4 which on linguistic grounds has been considered to be pre-Paninian/' And in the Mun4ak6panisad (circa 700 B. C.) too the six Vedangas have been enumerated. 6 In a passage of the Gautama Dharma siitra (circa 500-400 B.C.) we learn that as his authorities on the administration of justice the king was to take among other things the Vedaiiga (VIII. 5 ; XI. 19 ; SBE., Vol. 33, p. 234; Winternitz, op. cit. s Vol. I, p. 519). In the Apastamba 1 Prof. Lakshman Samp bas a different; opinion on this point (Translation and Notes of the Nighar;$u and the Nirukta, pp. 221-223). He is also unwilling to recognize Panini's grammar or Nighantu or similar other works as Vedangas (loo. cit,). 2 Srauta Sutras in fact represented the Kalpa sutras most. For according to the Sik*a PrakSia commentary to the PS. kalpa is the science of rituals. s Max Muller, op. cit., pp. 211 ff. *■ Ibid, pp. 112-113. 5 Winternitz, op. cit., Vol. J, p. 191. 6 Ibid, p. 268. For the time of Mundaka, see Hertel's edn., pp. 64ff. INTRODUCTION xx jii Dharma sQtra (c. 500 B.C.) 1 too Vedangas have been mentioned twice (I. 10, 28, 21 ; II. 4, 8, 10). This sutra work also enu- merates the six angas, one of which is of course the Siksa CIL 4, 8, 10). 2 In spite of these very early references to Vedangas with or without their number, earlier scholars were not prepared to admit that such references implied 'the existence of six distinct books or treatises intimately connected with the sacred things' and in their opinion these references implied merely the admission of six subjects, the study of which was necessary either for the recitation, the understanding, or the proper sacri- ficial employment of the Vedic hymns (Max Miiller, op. cit., p. 109 ; Wintemitz, o-p. cit., Vol. I, p, 268), But as we have seen before that conditions favourable for the rise of the Vedangas were probably in existence as early as 1000 B.C. and as the beginning of these studies at the time of the early Brahmanas are attested by reliable references the existence of written treatises on Vedic aiigas about 600 B. 0. can by no means be considered to be impossible. The most one can assume about such works in the absence of suitable evidence, is that they have probably been lost. But to consider them to be non-existent after a lapse of nearly four centuries during which Vedic priests could compose voluminous Brahmanas will indeed be a unique piece of inconsistency. Max Miiller' s schematic division of the Vedic period into Ohandas, Mantra, Brahmana and Sutra periods perhaps lie at the back of this kind of unreasonable view. It is not possible that such closely divided ages ever existed ; some overlapping has surely occurred ; some at least of the Vedanga treatises were written in the Brahmana period— may be towards its end. For it is scarcely possible that when an energetic and intelligent people like the Indo-Aryans were already composing works like the 1 SBE., Vol. 33, xliii ; also Bafcakrishna Ghosh, 'Apastamba and Gautama' in THQ., 1927, pp. 607ff. 2 J. Charpentier places without auy justification the origin of the Vedangas between 300-100 B.C. (see his ed. of the Uttaradhyayanasutra, pp. 31-32). xxiv THE PANINIYA SIK$A Brahmanas, small treatises on the Vedangas which, as we already noticed (§ 5), must have been a vital necessity with them about 1.000 B.C. and after, were not then being prepared. Thus we are justified to assume that treatises on different Vedangas might have been in existence between 1000-000 B.C. 1 1 Cf. Siddbeshwar Varma, op, oit., pp. 2, 4. SlKSI 10. We have seen above under what possible conditions the Vedic priests might have turned their attention to the pronunciation of their sacred language and how this attention ultimately gave rise to the Siksa-vedanga. But, as can very naturally be expected, the word Siksa did not continue to mean the same thing during the different stages of its evolution. 11. According to Panini (VII. 4. 58) the word Siksa has been derived from the desiderative of 3ak, 'to be able. 3 Thus the literal m sailing of s'iksa will be 'a desire to be able.' It is very difficult to understand how this rather curious meaning finally developed into 'phonetics.' It is indeed due to this difficulty that Weber and Max Miiller have cu£ the Gordian knot by a bold assumption that a/ siks means originally 'a desire to know' (zu konnen suchen) though it must be admitted that 'knowing' cannot very well be equated to 'pronunciation.' 2 But, from the discussion made above of the conditions under which Siksa as a subject of study arose, the original meaning of this word seems to be plain enough. For were not the newly Aryanized people with th^ir different ancestral speech-habit ill able to recite the Vedic mantras in a faultless manner ? Now it may well be assumed that the difficulty in their case who had a totally different linguistic basis was so great that learners am )ng them had to have indeed a very strong 'desire to be able' to recite the Veiic hymns. Possibly on such a hypothesis alone can we understand how the original meaning of 'to desire to be able' cima to be narrowed ,iown 'to desire to be able to recite the Vedas correctly' and from this finally 1 See Luders, Vyaaa^iksa. p. 1. 2 Weber, Ind. Sbud., TV, p. 345, xxvi THE PANINIYA glKSA developed the sense of the study of pronunciation. Thus the original import of the term Siksa seems to have embedded in it an important history. 12. Now the Vedic pronunciation as we see from the Siksas and Prati^akhyas was more or less a complex affair. But it is not so much possible that all phases of this complexity were felt all at once at the very beginning when attention began to be given to pronunciation 1 ; even in case of its being felt these different aspects of it could not be handled with success at the very beginning. Whatever might be the case it is pretty sure that with the early Vedic phoneticians ($iksakaras) matters were simple enough and only the fundamentals occupied their attention. Our evidence in this matter comes from Patanjali who in his definition of a typical priest (arUrijina) says that he should be able to use the (Vedic) speech with (properly inflected) words (padrt), with (proper) accent (svara) and with the (properly articulated) speech-sounds (varnas).' 2 From this we learn that the observation of the proper accent as well as the right pronunciation of speech-sounds were Siksakaras' chief object of study. And a later authority Visnumitra, a commentator of the RPr., defines the $iksa as $vara-varndpade§aJca-£astram, a the science which teaches accent and the speech-sounds (varna). Madhusiidana Saras vati too says the same thing more elaborately, 4 Hence we see that the correct production of speech-sounds in general and the pitch and quantity of vowels comprised 1 In order to appreciate these we are to take notice of different stages in the phonetic evolution of the Middle Indo-Aryan. See S. K Chatterji, op. oit. 2 yo va imant, padaiah svarati®' k§ar&6o vacaip vidadliati sa artvipnah (Mahabbasya, Vol. I, p. 3). Pada in this parage does not; mean 'Versstollen' though in the Aitareya Brahmana this is the meaning (see B. Liebich, Zur Einurbrung, II, §§ 3-4) and alisara does not mean here syllable in connection -with metrics but with phonetics, for Patanjali says later on that Vedic words are taught to those who know places of articulation, adjustment of organs and the vocal words. This probably shows phonetics was studied earlier than metrics. 3 v. 1, svara-varn6ccaran&pade£aka R>Pr., ed. Benares, p. 10; 3. Varma, op. eit., p. 4. * tatra iikRaya udattmudattasvanta-hra^vadirghaplutmiiista-svaravyafljanal'maka- varno-ccarana visista-jnamm prayojanam, Weber, Ind. Stud,, I, p. 16, INTRODUCTION xxvii the sole scope^of the Siksa at the earliest stage of its develop- ment. It is quite possible that there was no written treatise on these topics, the Acarya teaching the young learner (brahma- can) 1 by words of his mouth, and it was only a little later that the earliest manual on different topics of the Siksa came to be written down. Now of the two phases of pronunciation that were considered important in the beginning, the proper instruc- tion of the speech-sounds was probably reduced to a system first of all. We do not know what this system was like, but in view of somewhat phonetic arrangement of varnas in the Varna-samam- naya or the so-called Siva-sutras 2 we are tempted to assume that this— probably in some earlier form— constituted the first treatise on the instruction of speech-sounds. The word samamnaya ' traditional recitation ' probably gives support to this view. Katyayana also seems to give it support while he says vrlli-savna- vayarlha upade§ah, the enunciation (of the speech-sounds in the Siva-siitras) is meant for arranging the varnas in a proper order for (the facility of) recitation. 8 * The prescription of along residence of the very young Brahmacarin (coming- in some cases from extra- Aryan groups) with the Acarya, in the Gyhya-sulras resulted and seems to be meant for a linguistic rebirth {dvijatva). 2 Prof. B. Faddegon says that the Siva-sutra as a phonetical classification deserves the highest praise (' The mnemontechnics of Panini's Grammar/ Acta Orientalia, VII, 1929, p. 54). Mr. X. 0. Ohatterji is against such a view (see Journal of the Depart- ment of Letters, Calcutta University, Vol. XXIV). 3 In ibis translation we have ventured to differ from PataSjali on the infcei- pretation of the word vrtti which he explains as iastra-vrantlih (ed. Kielhorn, Vol. I, p. 13). Our translation of the word as 'recitation' has its support from the well-known couplet abhyasMJie drutavi vrltim, etc. (BPr., XHI. 19, Yaj., 22, etc.). Compare also the worj Sof tti recitation. J f Patafijali has misunderstood Katyayana there is no wonder about it ; according to his own testimony Patafijali lived in a decadent age as regards the proper teaching of the Vedas. He says : In the hoary antiquity it was like this : Brahmans after their upanayana studied grammar. And when they have learnt the" places of articulation of sounds, the adjustment of organs and vocaL chord in pro- ducing them, they were given instruction in Vedic words. But to-day it is not so. Keadin„. the Veda (straight) one quickly becomes a rector of the same. {Pura kalpa etad asit, tawskardttarakahw Brahmana vyakarartam am&dhiyate, tebhyas tatra sthana^ karanAnuprad&jflebhyo Vaidika iabdi upadiiyante. tad adyatve na tatha. Vedam adhUya ttariti vaktaro bhavanti.) The use of the word kalpa is very significant. It literally means 432 million years but is used here in the sense of 'hoary antiquity.' 'Dm xxviii THE PANINIYA SIKtfA 13. There may however be some objection to the above view on the following grounds •' (i) in the Varna-samamnaya Jong and pluta vowels have been omitted, (u) unvoiced stops have not been arranged in the same order as the voiced ones, (Hi) the absence of ynrna, anusvara, visarga, jihva-muliya and upadhmamya in it and (id) the h of the sutra ha-ya-va-ra-t and the sii-tra ha-l at the end duplicating h, is inexplicable. 14. Now in reply to the first objection it may be said that a person learning short vowels correctly will naturally find it easy to produce their long and protracted varieties, and it is for this reason that the author of the Varna-samamnaya did not . probably like to make it unnecessarily cumbersome for the beginner by inclusion of these sounds, for the quantity of the vowel constituted a separate subject of instruction (see PS. 7).- That voiced and unvoiced consonants have not been arranged in the same order in the Varna-samamnaya cannot go against its phonetic character ; on the contrary, by varying the places of articulation in the utterance of the sounds their mechanical and hence wrong pronunciation has possibly been guarded against. Or it might be for the sake of his Pratyaharas Panini had to arrange the sounds like this. As for the omissioni of yama and anusvara, etc., it may be said that being development of sounds already existing in the Varna-samamnaya they do not appear there. Eegarding the repetition of the sound h it may be said that there were possibly two h's recognized in the Old Indo-Aryan, one voiced and another unvoiced. The fact that the second h is taken along with §, s and s, may justify us in making the above assumption. Prof. Skold has tried to explain this double, h by assuming that the Varna-samamnaya might have been altered since its first formation and the last sutra has probably been a later creation (Papers on Pacini, p. £0). passage ahows that the chronological distance between Patafijali and the early writer* on Vedio phouetics aB well as Panini might be very great or the progress of Buddhism that preceded Patafijali must have been very detrimental to the Vedio studies or bof h might be facts. INTRODUCTION xxix 15. As for the authorship of the Varna-samamnaya we have no means of deciding whether it was made hy some pre Pacinian authority (Siva, MahesVara) or Panini. 1 All we can reasonably assume is that Panini might have adopted the already existing material (the Siva-sutras in their original form), with certain changes, as the matrix of his pratyaharas, and the Sik?a connect- ed with his name was perhaps the work to which was prefixed this Varna-samamnaya and furnished the basis of Panini's gram- mar and phonetics. The relation of the PS. to this work which in its original form may go back to the first age of the Siksa- Yedanga (1000-600 B.C.) will be considered later (§ 20). 16. The scope of the Siksa as .given in the Taittiriya Upanisad probably brings us to the second stage in the evolution of this Vedanga. According to this Upanisad (t. 2) the Siksii consists of svara ' pitch accent,' matra ' quantity,' bala ' stress,* sama 'utterance in a medium tone,' and santana ( sarfihlta, 'euphoric combination.' 2 While referring to the Siksa in his introduction to the Rgveda-bhasya Say ana thinks of the developed state of this Vedanga even when he says varna-svarddyuccaraya- praJcaro yatra upadiiyate sa Hksa ; for he brings in the 1 Prof B. Faddegon says : Most likely the Siva Sutra is of earlier date than the Astadhyayi (op. cit,, p. 56). Dr. Mangel Deva Shastri too thinks that the Siva-sutras are pre- Pacinian (' The Kelation of Panini's Technical Devices to hia Predecessors' in the Proceedings of the Fourth Oriental Conference, Allahabad, Vol. II, 1028, pp. 469f.). Mr. K. A. Sulrahmania Iyer however thinks that the Siva Sutras are Panini's own (On the Fourteen Mahes>aia Sutras, ibid, p. 142). Dr. P. Thieme thinks as follows : The idea of some modern scholars that this dogma [i.e., the divine revelation of the Siva-sutra) contains as a * historical nucleus' the fact that Panini did not compose the ' Siva Sutras ' himself, is nothing short of absurd (op. cit.). But his view that Patafijali took it for granted that the Siva Sutraa are P.'s work, seems to be wrong. Patafijali merely says in this conneetion th.it etad jilapayaty acaryah (Panini). The verb jflapayati (suggests) has the same root as jMpaka (a suggested or implied precept) so often uf ed in the Maaauhasya, 2 . The translation oi the terms given above is based on Sankara's Bhasya of the Taitt. Up. ; of. the translation of these terms by Prof. Wiuternitz (k History of Indian Literature, Vol. I, p. 282). Macdonell in pursuance of Sayana translates these a3 letters, accents, .quality, pronunciation and euphonic rules (see Hist, of Skfc. Lit., p. 256). Dr. Siddheshwar Varma- translates variia a3 'individual sounds/ svara as 'accent,' santana as,' chanting of tbe Vedie verses' and in this connexion he ignores bala totally (see his Critical Studies, p. 4), xxx THE P'lNINiYA SIKSA passage from the Taitt. Up. (1.2). According to him svara- varnadayah means varna, svara, mSttra, bala, sama and saniana. But the fact that Sayana in his Veda-bhasya quotes from Pratisakhyas does not invalidate his testimony about the Vedanga SiksH which according to him is the PS. For he mentions no less than three couplets (PS. S, 9, 10) of the latter work * As Uvata, one of Sayana's predecessors, in his introduction to the commentary of the Rk Pratis'akhya has considered this work to be a Siksa 2 we can easily believe that Sayana was fully conscious about the historical relation between the PS. and the Pratisakhyas and he surely followed a correct tradition in according due honour to each kind of works on the subject. For the Pratisakhyas, though one of them has called itself a Vedaoga, 3 were, as we shall see presently, the Siksa manuals belonging to the second stage in the develop- ment of this Vedanga, and Madhusudana Sarasvatl too was aware of this fact. 4 The position of the Pratisakhyas in the history of ancient Indian phonetic literature seems to have been very much misunderstood. 5 And in order to appreciate their proper position as well as that of the Vedanga Siksa composed by Panini we must now inquire into the nature and scope of the Pratisakhyas and their time. 1 Sayana evidently used one of the very late recensions of the PS. for he says sa c&Hgabhuia-Mksa-grantJie spastam udiritafy 'trisa^is' catufyastir v3, varna sambliavato matah" etc. (Pnj. Prak. Yaj. and Rk. 3.J 2 tathapy asyim Sikqayarri, dantyamuliya iti replio ian.tyamu.liya ity uktdh (ed. S&masrami, p. U). Madhusudana too calls PiabisSakhyas Siksas; see the Note 5 below. 3 RPr. XIV. SO ; Madhusudana seems to be of opinion that the Pratisakhyas too are Vedafigas. * tatra sarva-vedasaihclranaJiksa Payinina prakMita prative,da6d,lc!iaiy, ca bhinnarUpi p ralisakhyasamjMta anyaireva munibUh prakMila. 5 Of. Max Mflllar, op. cil„ p. 116f. ; Winternitz, Vol. I, p. 283 ; Kielhorn in I. A.nt., 6, pp.144, 193 contra which Burnell, Rk-tantra VySkarana, pp. xlix-1 ; S. Sastri, op.' cit, Introduction, p, 40. Exceptions are Goldsfciicker 'Panini', p. 184, and Paul Thieme, 'Paoin and the Veda,' Allahabad, 1935, pp. 81ff. PBATI&KHYAS 17. Before entering into any discussion about the origin, nature and scope, etc., of the Pratis'akhyas it would be proper to examine the term about the meaning of which there seems to exist some misunderstanding. The word consists of thre^ 1 parts : prati, 4akha and the formative element. Of these, the exact meaning of Sakha should .be determined first of all. 18. The sakha, as is well-known, relates to the different Vedic schools ; but we do not know whether the sakha refers to the one undivided Veda or to e a c h of the different Vedas, such as, Rk, Saman, Yajus (Black and White), etc. Let us first consider the case of an undivided Veda. From the story occurring in the Mahabbarata and some Puranas that Krsaa-dvaipayana Muni divided the Veda into four parts 1 we may infer that the Vedic mantras existed once as an undivided corpus. The fact that particular mantras 'are found in more Vedas than one, hints that the mantras were collected under different names chiefly with a view to their ritual use. For example, the collection of mantras made for the use of the Hotr was called Rk and that for the use of the A d h v a r y u was called the Yajus while the U d g a t r' s collection was called the Saman. Now the principle according to which the particular mantras could be put under different labels was the same as that which has been traditionally afc the root of the division of the Vedas into Sakhas. For, from Mahadeva's commentary on the HiranyakesI i For details see SaslbMsana Vidyalaiikara, ^faftt^tf (Jwanvhosa), Calcutta, 1341 B.E. , pp. 1090 f . (article on 'Vedavyasa'), xxxii THE PININIYA glKSA Sutra we ]earn that one of fche reasons which gave rise to sakhas was the manner of reading the Vedas. 1 This being the case we can well say that from one original Veda came out first of all sakhas like Bk, Saman, Yajus, etc. 2 For, the uttering of Vedic mantras by different classes of priests was different ; the Hofcr recited the Rcas with his normal voice, fche Adhvaryu muttered the Yajurnsi silently, while the Udgafcr chanted Sarnans loudly. 8 19. But the threefold sakha, if we are allowed to postulate this, must have existed at the very beginning of the period which witnessed the growth of Vedic ritualism, or roughly in the period preceding the Brahmanas. From this period onwards the Vedic people, that is, the Aryans together with the pre- Aryan ethnic element which they might have absorbed, began to scatter themselves in widely separated regions of the Indian continent where Aryanization followed. This diffusion of the Vedic people, their culture and religion gave rise, in course of time, to difference in pronunciation of the mantras, and mantras being orally transmitted some of them came, in course of time, to be read in different places with more or less different word order, and a difference in the order of stanzas constituting them also arose. It is probably these factors that brought forth different sakhas in the generally accepted sense and they were, in fact, sakhas of s'akhas or secondary sakhas. Pratis'akhyas relate to all such sakhas in existence at the time of their composition or final redaction. But separation among the different branches of the Vedic people resulted not only in the 1 SaMabhede* dhyayanabhedad va sRtra bhedld m. See Max Miiller, Ancient Ski. Literature, London, 1859, p. 127. 2 Max Miiller also writes ; 'The word {i.e., Sakha) is sometimes applied to fhe three original SamhitSi, the Rgveda-sarphita, Sama-veda-sirnhita and Yajur-veda-samhita, in relation to one another and without reference to subordinate Sakhas belonging to each of them." (op. cit., pp. 123, 124). Yaik-i's use of singular number with reference to the Veda deserves notice \1.20j. Prof. Sirup however takes this differently. See his transl., p. 221. * Max Muller, op. cit, pp. 122, 471 f. ; Purva-Miiharnsa-Sutras (II, 1. 35-37), INTKODUCTION xxxiii difference of pronunciation of the mantras but also a variation of their sacrificial rules and social laws and customs. Thus the sakhas came to relate also to a difference in such matters/ though Pratisakhyas had nothing to do with such sakhas. 2 20. Now the exact sense of sakhas having been determined we shall proceed to ascertain the sense of the term PratiSakhya. According to Max MiiHer who wrote in 1859, ' Pratis&khya...does not mean, as has been supposed, a treatise on phonetic peculiarities of each Veda, but a collection of phonetic rules peculiar to one of the different branches of the four Vedas, i.e., to one of those different texts iu which each of the Vedas had been handed down for ages in different families and different parts of India.' 3 This view has been subscribed to by Whitney in his edition of the Afcharva-veda Pratisakhya (1862) . 4 Since then almost all the scholars have followed this view. 5 But such an opinion seems to have been expressed on very inadequate grounds. For, Madhava, quoted by Jnanendra Sarasvati in his gloss on the Siddh. Kau. (P. IV. 3. 59), explains Pratisakhya as prati- §aliham bhavam. 6 And Anantabhatta too in the introduction to his commentary to the Sukla-Yajus Pratis'akhya defines the word similarly and shows, after an elaborate discussion, that Katyayana's work relates to all the fifteen sakhas which developed out of the Sukla Yajur-veda. 7 From the testimony of Durga also we learn that the Pratisakhya related to more schools than one. For in his commentary to the Nirukta (I. 17) he says : kirn parsadani ? svacaraw-parsady eva yaih 1 See above, footnote 2. 'Sutra' in Mahadeva's comm. means Kalpasutras, i.e., Srauta-, Grhya- and Dharma-Sutfas. 2 The word 'Sakha' uBed hereafter in this essay will mean, unle8s otherwise pualified, a phonetic Sakha only. 3 Op. cit„ p. 119. i JAOS., Vol. VII, pp. 342, 580 f. 5 See Siddheshwar Varma, Critical;Studies, p. "12 ; Winternitz, Hist, of Ind. Lit,, Vol." I, Calcutta, 1924, p. 284. 6 Siddhanta-kaumudx, ed. Gadgil, Bombay, 1904, p. 249. 7 Katyayana's Vajasaneyl Pratisakhya, ed. Venkatarama Sharma, Madras University, 1934, pp. 2-5. * D ™v THE PANINIYA SIKSA pmtiBkliam niyatam ova paddvagmlia-pragrhya'kmma-samMld- svaralaksanam ucyale tani imani parsadani prattiakhyani ity arthah. 1 "Those Parsada. books by which in a Parisad of one's own Carana, the peculiarities of accent, samhita, krama-reading, pragrhya vowels and separation of words are laid as enjoined for, and restricted to each s'akha are called Pratisakbyas.' Max Mtiller who quoted the above passage may be said to have misunderstood it. Pratisakham which he translated as 'to certain sakhas' should be equivalent to 'to each Sakha.' It should be noticed in this connexion that Max Muller's transla- tion of the passage is not in agreement with his own definition of the term Pratisakhya quoted above. However the fault lies principally with commentators like the author of the Vaidikft.- bharana whom Max Mtiller in all likelihood followed. For in the last named work which does not say anything about the exclusive phonetic character of s'akhas in a Pratisakhya, it has been suggested that the Pratisakbyas relate to a group of sakhas. 1 This suggestion seems to give partial support to Madhava's and Anantabhatta's testimony referred to above. For it does nob restrict Pratisakbyas to o n e only of the many sakhas. The word Parsada which is a synonym for Prattiakhya seems to give some clue to the solution of the problem whether Pratislkhyas related to only one or all the Sakhas of a Veda. In Narayana's commentary to a passage (deary am saparisatkam bhojayet sabrahmacarinas'-ca in the Gobhila-Grhyasutra-bhasya we find the following saha parisada tisyaganend vartata iti sa-parisatkah tarn, samanam tulyakalam brahmacaritvam yesam ta ime anyaiakhino'pi sabrahmacarinah savayo'bhi adhiyante. 2 From this passage we learn that students belonging to different Vedic schools could take their lessons from one Acfirya who together with his pupils, constituted a Parsada or Parisad, Thus 1 Mas Miiller, op. cit.< p. 131; S. Varma translates Madhava's words as belonging b each individual (prati) 6akba {op. oil., . 12), a On the T, Pr„ IV. 11 ; Siddheshwar Varma, op. cit., p, JL3 # INTRODUCTION xxxv Parsada siitras evidently related to such Parisads comprising different schools of. a Veda. Hence it seems justifiable to conclude that Pilrsada-sutras or Prfitisakhyas related to each one or all the sakhas of a Veda. 21, By taking what seems very much to be a wrong view about the meaning of the word Pratisakhya or the scope of a work so named, Whitney felt some uneasiness over naming the Pratisakhya of the .Krsna-Yajnr-veda as the Taittiriya Pratisakhya. 1 The very fact that this Pratisakhya mentioned the Black Yajus schools like Mimaqpsaka and Ahvaraka as well as Taittiriya, made id very inconvenient for him to attach the Pratisakhya to the last named school. (Taittiriya) only. But still he considered it prudent to adopt the name Taitt. Pr. for the work, though it did not quite satisfy his great critical acumen. For he confesses that ' we are far from fully comprehending as yet the origin, nature and relation of the " schools" of Vedie study and their accepted texts or gakhas...' 2 This, however, was not the attitude of Whitney a few years earlier when he edited the Atharva-veda Pr. and had recourse to conjectures of varying degrees to explain away the discordance between the theory current in his time about the nature and scope of Pratisakhyas and the characteristics of the Pr. in hand. He attached this Pr. to the Saunaka school of the Atharva-veda and troubled himself about the problem why in certain points it was not in complete agreement to the Veda of this school. He little dreamt the Pr. in question related also to other Atharva Sakhas which in all likelihood perished or were till then untraced. 3 Hence in his edition of the Atharva-veda Pr. Whitney writes 'It is peculiarity of the authors of our treatise to give their rules a wider scope than the vocabulary of the Atharva 1 See p. 427 of Whitney's ed. of this Pratis&kbya was published in 1871. 2 Whitney, T. Pr. p. 427. 3 Tbe Paippalada sakba of the Atharva-veda discovered after Whitney's e3. of the Atharva Pr. should be remembered in this connexion. xxxvi THE PININIYA SISSI requires, in many instances contemplating and providing for combination of sounds which are found nowhere in the body of Vedic scriptures,, and for which accordingly the commentator U obliged to fabricate illustrations (p. 583).' Now whatever may be said about the genuineness of examples given by the commentator who was possibly very late, it cannot be said that the author of the Pratisakhyas based his rules on non-existing materials. In view of the tradition that "Vedas, in different periods, came to be lost and had to be recovered, it will not be difficult to assume that some of the sakhas with their texts perished beyond recovery. 1 Even if his allegation against the commentator in some rare cases may not be untrue, Whitney himself has admitted that ' there are certain number of sentences among those given by the commentator which have more or less clearly the aspect of genuine citations from "Vedic texts; and although some might be regarded as instances of carelessness on his part quoting by memory from another source than his own Veda, we cannot possibly extend this explanation to them all ; it must remain probable that, in part at least, they were contained in some hitherto unknown gahhti of the Atharva-veda.' 2 From these passages one will easily realise the untenable nature of the meaning given to Pratisakhya by Whitney, his predecessors and followers. a 22. Max Miiller, in his introduction to the Rk-Prati^akhya (1870) does not care to examine in details the deviations of the Pratis'akhya from the available Rgveda text (of Sakala recension). This may be said to be due particularly to his strong belief that Pratisakhyas were concerned with one sakha of a Veda. Hence, he very summarily disposes of the question of relationship between the Pratis'akhya and the Rgveda (Sakala) text by saying that, as "in all essential points our own best 1 Hopkins, ' The Great Epic of India,' p. 5. 2 JAOS., VII, p. 588. 3 E.g., Prof. Keith believes with Whitney that the T.Pr. relates to the Taittirtya Mantra-patha alone. See The Veda of the BlaeK Yajua School, HOS, p. xxxviii. INTRODUCTION xxxvii manuscripts of the text agree with the data in the Pratisakhya, we may prudently conclude that the text of the Rgveda we possess is the same as seen by the authors of the Pratisakhya more than 2000 years ago." 1 Along with this should be remembered what he himself wrote in this connexion eleven years earlier. In the History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (1859) Max Miiller wrote : " There is not a single MS. at present existing of the Rgveda in which rales of our Pratisakhya are uniformly observed, and the same applies to the MSS. of the other Vedas." 2 22 (a). Bunnell, too, in his introduction to the Bk-tantra- vyakarana (Mangalore, 1879), considered by him to be a Pratisakhya of the Sama-veda, thought that Pratisakhyas belonged to one of the many sakhas of a Veda. He attached the Rk-tantra to the Kauthumi sSakha alone and made some conjectures as to why this Pratisakhya could not be connected with Jaiminiya, Talavakara or Ranayaniya sakhas, and he assumed that Pratisakhyas connected with these sakhas had been lost. But all these assumptions seem to be uncalled for. For example, characteristics of some Sama sakhas such as the cerebral I and short e and o were in all probability phonetic developments occurring or recognized later. 8 There can be nothing against such an assumption. For there is the traditional view that the difference of sakhas arising from difference in uttering mantras is without any (historical) beginning ; 4 and from this we may deduce that even after the Pratisakhyas were written new differences in pronuncia- 1 IETQ'., Vol. Ill, 1927, pp. 611-612 : Introduction to Bk-Pr., translated into English by B. K, Ghoab. 2 Pp. 136,137. 3 Patanjali's opinion regarding the shortening of e and o in the Satyamugrlya and Banayanlya Sakbaa of tbe Sama-veda deserves special notice ,jn this connexion. For be is unwilling to recognize such a deviation from tbe tradition thougb the Parisad gave it sanction. He says, paraadalqtir esa tatmbhavatam naiva loke n&nyasmin vede'rdha elcaro'rdha olcaro v&sti on tbe Sivasutra {ai-au-c). * adliyayana-bhedatc cMMabhedo'nddi quoted by Max Miiller., op. cit., p. 127. See also pp. 117-118 ; pravacanabhedai praiivedam bMnna bhuyasyaS ca tehha, says Madhusudana Sarasvati in the Prasthana-bheda, xxxviii THE PANINIYA 3IK8A tion could arise between several groups of Vedic people and did actually arise and thus the process which brought into existence different iSakhas was practically without an end. 1 It will be found on a closer study of the various Pratis'akhyas and Siksas that the difference of pronunciation amoug Vedic sakhas owe their origin to the forces which tended to develop the Old Indo- Aryan to the Middle Indo-Aryan and the later to the New Indo- Aryan dialects. 2 But Whitney, Max Muller and Burnell however viewed the matter differently and so did Weber before them. 3 23. The Pratis'akhyas belonging as they do to the second age of the study of the Siksa Vedanga had a much wider scope than the manual of the subject that was produced in the first age. 4 Prom a study of the contents of the Prati^akhyas we find that the scope of the Siksa as given in the Taittiriya Upanisad (I. 2) applies to a considerable extent to the Pratis'akhyas which 1 Mr, Suryakanta Sastri in his Introduction to his new ed. of the Rk-tantra follows Burnell in assigning the work to the Kauthumi fekha (pp. 2-6). But Mr. Sastri has also given some fresh arguments in support of Burnell 's theory. These, however, are by no means unassailable. That the Jaiminiya text of the Sama-veda did not give the peculiarities provided for in the Sutras 58, 94, 112 and 114 can be explained also by the assumption that the phonetic changes in question might have arisen later or the Prati^akhyas being manuals of pronunciation had not much influence with the scribes, and discrepancy between the written text and its pronunciation can well be assumed to have existed in early times also. From the emphatic manner in which the use of written texts of the Vodas has been discouraged we can well infer this. For the Naradlya-Siksa says : Pustahapratyayddhttan n&dhitaiib gurus annidhau mjate net sabhdmadhye jaragarbJw iva striyah- (II. 8. 19), and the Yajnavalkya-Siksa has the following : gtit frglir 1 sirah-ltampi tatha lihhita-pathahah anarthajno'lpakanthas' ca sad ete pathak&dhamah. (198). The long quotation which Mr. Sastri has given in support of his connecting the Rk-tantra with fcheKauthuma £akha alone of the Sama-veda, is not at all convincing. According to this question the KautbumI s^kha seems to include Narada, Lorna^a, Gautama and Naigeya schools, He ought to have explained this fact. 2 Bloomfield and Edgerfcon, Vedic Variants, Vol. 2, Phonetics, Ch. I, especially §§ '2043. See also Max Muller, Ancient Skt. Lit., p. 117. 3 Weber, Indische Studien, IV, pp. 67 ff. See also Winternitz, 4 Hist, of Itid. Lit., Vol. I, p. 284. According to the Taitt. Up. Siksa treats of the follwing : varna (speech-sounds) svara (pitch-accent), matra (quantity), bala (stress), stima (utterance in a medium tone), and sarnliita (euphonic combination). Contra this, see Winternitz, op. cit,, Vol. I, p. 285. INTRODUCTION xxxix should be called secondary Siksas. 1 When judged by the standard set up by the Taitt. Up. for Siksa (phonetics), the Prati- sakhyas may be found wanting in certain respects. 2 For example, the treatment of sama and bala is non-existent in them. But it can well be assumed that as these two topics were exclusively matters of oral instruction the Pratisakhyas did not discuss them. 24. As for the date of the Pratisakhyas which as we have seen can be called the secondary &iksas, their rise and develop- ment, at least of the older ones among them, can be roughly placed between 600-200 B.C. 3 A detailed discussion about the date of the Pratisakhyas will carry us far beyond the scope of the present work. But in support of the lower limit to the date of the early Pratisakhyas it may be mentioned that the passages from the. Taittirlya Pr. and Atharva Pr. occur in the Mahabhasya of Patau jali (c. 200 B.C.). Patarrjali's loan to the Pr. has already been pointed out by Dr. Siddheshwar Varma but the acquaintance of the Bhasyakara with the A. Pr. has not been pointed out before. Under the Varttika to Panini I. 1. 10. Patau jali * quotes sprstam spartonam kara- nam. Isatsprstam antahsthanam. vivrtam usmanam Isad ity anuvartate. svaranam ca [MSS. A B vivrtam isaditi nivrttam]. Here we have sutras 29-32 of the APr. with the difference that the word order of the sutra usmanam vivrtam ca has been changed and ca has been omitted. The accompanying vrtti in Patanjali's quotation shows that he has quoted from some sutra work which was evidently the APr. 5 1 C/. Suryakanba Sastri, op. ait., "Introduction, p. 8. 2 For the scope of the &ik§§ as laid down in the Taitt. Up., see § 16. 3 S. Varma, op. cit., p. 412. See also Hannes Skold, 'The Nirukta : Its place in Old Indian Literature, its Etymologies.' Lund, 1926, p. 121. Before Dr. Varma he surmised that the Pr. was to be placed before Patanjali though he very rightly held that the age of the Prltislkhyas has rather been overrated. Cf. Winternitz, Vol. I, p. 268, 4 Ed. Kielhorn, Vol. I, p. 64. 5 Becenti attempts to show that the Saunakiya Caturidhyayika is not the A. Pr. must be pronounced as a failure {.vide The Atharva-Pr?ti£akbya, ed. Viswa Bandhu Vidyarthi Shastri, Lahore, 1923, pp. 13-14. S. Sastri, op. cit, introduction, p. 6). For, UVata in his introduction to the Rk Pr. writes, "tatha catharvana-prd,ti£althye idam eva prayojancm uhtdm evam iheti oa vibhdsapraptani samanye." A. Pr.. I, 2. s Pa^inIya Siksx ( 25. Its contents. The PS. as we have reconstructed it from different recensions, contains only eighteen couplets in anustubh metre though the longest (Rk) recension includes no less than forty-two additional couplets 1 most of which are in the same metre. The extreme shortness of this Siksfi-Vedanga can well be compared with that of the Chanclo-Vedanga which is embedded in the Chandah-sutras of Pingala and contains only 87 sutras which will scarcely be much bigger in extent than the PS. 2 But in spite of its extreme brevity the PS. was more or less a complete manual on the pronunciation of the Vedio speech-sounds in general at the time the work was composed. In the first two couplets the PS. enumerates the speech- sounds (varnas) ; vowels and consonants have been separately mentioned. The next four couplets (3-6) give a theory of production of the speech-sounds. This is followed by a five- fold classification of these sounds according to their pitch, quantity, place of articulation, primary effort (prayatna) and the secondary effort (anupradana), (7-16). It goes without saying that pitch and quantity primarily concerned vowels while the remaining items all the sounds. The sounds mentioned in the P$. are shown below in phonetic script according to their classes. 1 Some of the additional passages, e.g. Rk 46, 47 are not in verse. We however, have called them couplets only as a matter of convenience. 2 See Manomohan Ghosh, ' The Chando-VedMga of Pingala ' in IHQ, Vol. VII, 1931, t>p. 727 ff. j Weber, Ind. Stud., VIII, pp t 229-287. INTRODUCTION xH Table B Panini's Classification oj Speech-Sounds of the I A. 1. According to Places of Articulation. m SB 3 kautha * 8 > J3 • i— < •r-s J3 niurdhan c3 a cS H3 +3. o P 13 ostha alpaprana 1 kg c J *0 td p b <3 £-1 S3 on mahaprana kh gB eb jfi. thrfi th dfi ph bR anunasika usman {lateral) h 3 J 1 n m c8 (h)fi X 9 / s I 1 -u XI- {flapped) r a - c3 {semivowel) J „ W samau die Para a a: i i: u u: e8 (monoph- thong) 05 sandhyakmra kantha-talu kantha-osfcha (diphthong) e:(- ■ al = seg ? ) ai ! " ' • o : (=3,u=oo ? ) „au 2. According to Prayatana. a-sprsta a a: , i i: , u u: , e:( = ?aee) ai o:(- -? ob) QU Tsafc-sprsta j w r 1 ( h x f ) * nema-sprsta 9 f B sprsfca all stops and h 1 1 Terms in Italics have not been nsed in the PS xlii ttHE PININIYA SIKSA 3. According to Anupradana. f anuuasika nadin < t an-anunasika g J 1 n n m 4fi dfi bfr Isan-nada g J d d b svasin kh eh th th ph isac-chvSsin k c t t p 26. lis Language. Within the short extent of eighteen couplets we have one clear instance of Vedic usage (see .Note 9, see also Note 18). There is another expression which also according to the Kasika follows the Vedic usage (see Note 9 on so' dtrnah)'. Thus we may be justified to conclude that the PS. was written in a late form of the Vedic speech. The text of the Rk recension of the PS. as printed in the Siksa- Samgraha (Benares, 1893) has been furnished with accent marks. But as eighteen only of the couplets have been considered to be original we have no sufficient ground to take these accent-marks to be very old. But on looking to the archaic language of the PS. we are tempted to assume that the editor of the text of the &k recension, which served as the basis of the SS. text, must have bad behind him a good traditional support. It is quite likely that these accent-marks in the PS. fell into disuse just as the accent-marks in the Astadhyayi and Paniniya Dhatu- patha did. 3 Panini's sutras such as svaritenddhikamh, anudatta- nita atmane-padam (I. 3. 11, 12) clearly indicate that these two works were once accented. This possible existence of accent- marks in the PS. again speaks for its great antiquity. 27. That the PS. has been composed in the anustubh metre has been considered by Max Miiller to be the sign of its lateness. On this point, after emphasising the antiquity of the Ek Pratisakhya he says, ' By comparing Saunaka's chapters 1 See Wackernagel, I, p. INTRODUCTION xliii in his first Pratisakhya with the small sloka compilation which is generally quoted as the Vedanga, the difference of old and modern s'lokas will at once be perceived.' * As he has not expressly laid down the criterion with which to distinguish between the old and the new slokas we cannot judge the strength of his argument ; but slokas which he considered to be modern in structure might well have been among those which we have had to consider spurious. Whatever may be the fact, the anustubh metre in which the reconstructed PS. has been composed appears by no means younger in age than that in which works like the Brhaddevata (c. 400 B. C.) has been . composed. Four important characteristics of the classical Skt. s'lokas are : (i) of every pada the 5th syllable shall be short and (ii) the 6th syllable long and (Hi) the 7th syllable of the first and the third pada shall be long and (iv) that of the second and the fourth pada shall be short. Now in the PS. (as reconstructed by us) the 5th syllable of the pada is long thrice (6a, 15a, c) 2 and the 6th syllable short seven times (4a, 5a, c, 6a, 8c, 11a, c) and the 7th syllable of the first and the third pada is short seven times (4a, 5a, c, 6a, 11a, c) and the 7th syllable of the 2nd pada is long once (2b) . Considering the fact that the PS. consists of 18 slokas only these 18 instances of metrical irregularity is enough to show their archaic nature. 28. Its place in the Indian Literature. In his commentary to Jaimini's Purva-mimamsa sutras Sahara (c. 500 A.O.) 8 once (on I. 1.22) mentions the 'authors of the Siksa' (tiksakarah) } Plural being evidently used for showing respect we do not learn from this what particular author of Siksa Sabara had in mind. 1 op. cit, p. 145. 2 a, b, c and d indicate in this paragraph the first, second, third and the fourth quarter of a sloka. 3 E. G-. Bhaudarkar, JBRAS, 1914, p. 297 f. ; Winternitz, III, p. 425. 4 nam vdyu-Mranahah syaditivayurudgatah samyoga-vibhagaili 6abdo bhavatititatha ca sik s a-harali ahuh vaynr apadyate iabdatam Hi- Sabara here does uot quote the words of the PS but gives its view, xliv THE PANINIYA glKSA But he discusses later on (under I. 3. 25) a theory of the pro- duction of words, which is identical with that available in the P$. (3-6). 1 Bhartrhari (c. 650 A.O.) too in his Vakyapadlya (I.47) 2 seems to follow the same theory, though he does not mention any Siksa or Siksakara. But from Sahara's or Bharfcrhari's probable acquaintance with the PS. we do not learn anything about the authorship of this work. It may be that like the compiler of the Agni Purana they were not aware of the name of its author though it was surely looked upon by them as the most authentic Siksa or the Vedanga Siksa. The same may be said of Durga (c.1300 A.C.) 8 the commentator of the Nirukta, and Sayaria (1400 A.C), as well as Somesvara 4 and Bamakrsna 5 about the date of whom we have no definite idea. But Madhusudana SarasvatI G (c. 1500 A.C.) as well as the author of the Paraiarl Siksa 7 knew the PS. as the Vedanga and knew Panini as its author. Prom the description of the Siksa given in the Sukraniti 8 it- appears that the author of this work too knew of the PS. to be a Vedanga. Thus we see that though there might have occurred some break in the tradition about Panini's authorship of the P$. it was taken as the most import- ant Siksa or the Vedanga by eminent authorities probably from 500 A.C. to 1500 A.C. The question why the authorship of the PS. came later to be obscured is difficult to answer. 1 inahafa prayatnena gabdam uccaranti vayur nabher utthitah urasi vistirnali Icanthe vivartitah murdhanam ahatya vaktre viearan vividhan hbdan abhivyanjayati. PS. 3-4. 8 vitarlcitah pura buddhya kvacidarthe niveSitah karariebhyo vivfttena dhvanina so'nugfhyate. v.l. karanebhTJO vivrttew is evidently due to confusion. 3 .Durga in his introduction to the Comtn. of the Nirukta quotes PS. 3, from what he calls the Vtdanga Siksa (see Nirukta in Bomb. Skt. Series, p. 24). The date of the author is about 1300 A.O. (Introduction to thp, Nirukta, by Sarup, p 50). 4 Max SI filler, op, cit., p. 122. 5 Ed. Simon, p. 42; Siddheshwar Varma, op. cit, p. 5. 6 tatra sarva-vedasadharanaiiksa atha siksam pravaksyamiii paftcakhandatir.ika Paiiinina prakateta. Prasthana-bbeda, ed. Weber, p. 16. 7 SS. p60. 8 svaratah kalatah stliana-prayatnanupradanatah. savcvna&yaii ca sa Hksq, varrianatri. paiha-sikmiidt. INTRODUCTION xlv 29. In the absence of suitable data on the point we may- explain this obscurity by the fact that the ancient Indians did not sefc any value on history as such, their only care being the S&stra and not its authors or their dates. They however took notice of the most . important fact about the PS. that it was a Vedanga and concerned all the Vedas. 1 But the great importance attached to the PS. by these authorities is apparently weakened on the following grounds: The places of articulation for the sounds r, e, o, r and I as given in the PS. do not correspond to those given in the Prati- sakhyas and some of the late Siksas; and sounds like I (ss) and Ih (3SJ?) found in some Vedic texts do not occur at all in the PS. though they make casual appearance in the Pratisakhyas. 30. But looking more closely into these cases we shall find that there cannot be any real difficulty on these points. For we have seen before (§ 22a) that one aspect of different treatises on the Vedic phonetics is that they in a way help to trace the development of the spoken Indo-Aryan since the inception of its tendencies towards reaching to the Middle Indo-Aryan stage, and it is pretty sure that these tenden- cies interfered with the correct pronunciation of the Vedic mantras. Thus I { S5 ) and Ih ( 55 n ^ ) can easily be explained as later developments. 2 Mr. C. V. Vaidya thinks that these sounds were non-existent in the Vedas and developed later due to Dravidian influence. 3 This opinion seems to be extremely sound. The change of place in case of the articulation of r, e, o } r and I also can be explained in a similar fashion as later developments. Thus we should have no objection in admitting the Vedanga character of the PS. 1 See cotes above. 2 Of. S. K. Cbatterji, op. cit., p. 38; Thumb-Hirfc, Handbuch des Skt., Teil. I. § 21. Wackerrtagel, Altindiscbe Grammatik, Vol. I, pp. 255-256. 3 Hist, of Skt. Lit., Vol. I, Sec. I, p. 57 ; Sec. H, pp. 81, 114, 130, 137, 142, 154. Soutb Indian Skt. MSS. very often interchange Z and I without any principle. This probably points to the Dravidian origin of I (vide Waokemagel, he. cit). xlvi THE PXKINIYA SIKSA There seems to be another fact which goes in favour of the view presented above. As we have seen before (§ 25) that the PS. has a theory of production of the speech-sounds (3-6). The (Taitt. Pr.*) surely betrays an acquaintance with it. The acquain- tance of the Vaj. Pr. is probably clearer. 2 The Rk. Pr. (I, 18) a too seems to have known this. It is not clear if the APr. knew of it.. But the silence of the last work may well be ex- plained by assuming that its author did not probably consider it necessary to include the theory in his sQtras, for he might well have assumed a knowledge of it on the part of the readers. 81. Thus we can well take the PS. as the Siksa-Vedanga. This view will be further strengthened when we shall discuss below the relation of the PS. with the Astadhyayl and will produce evidence to show that the two works in all likelihood proceeded from the same master's hand. But before taking up the relation between the PS. and the Astadhyayl we shall have to examine the claim of another work for the position of the Vedanga. Dr. Eaghu Vira in an article named 'Discovery of the lost Phonetic Siifcras of Panini' published in the J R A S, 1931, (pp. 653 ff.) claims to have discovered the lost Phonetic Sutras of Panini. From the several arguments which he puts forth with great enthusiasm it may appear that the sutra work of his discovery (DPS. or Dayananda's Phonetic Sutras) is the Yedanga Siksa. But on a closer examination of the arguments we find that they are not as sound as Dr. Raghu Vira believes them to be. He starts with the assumption that the DPS. is the lost phonetic sutras of Panini though no independent authority 1 ^f%*^l **? SHnwp fapcftf m*H (XXIH, 10-12. Whitney, XXIII. 10), See foot-note of § 28. 2 spg fargTftfecrn | ^^^^SS^Tfr (I. 29-30). By Siksa Katyayana seems to mean the PS. 3 3P3fts*frrc: spwr^ffl ^ wrfffpff $ftrf?rr *swr ( 1, 18.), The view of 'some' who took 'h' as an urasya sound can be compared with the P$. 10. which has 'h' as aurasa under certain circumstances, INTRODUCTION xlvii attests its existence or the story of its alleged loss before the present time. Dr. Raghu Vira's allegation that Patanjali and other grammarians borrowed passages or their substance from this sutra work (DPS.) is extremely unhappy. For this borrow- ing might well have occurred the other way round, that is, the author of the DPS. might have culled his materials from sundry sources such as the Mahabhasya and the Varna-sutras of Oandragomin } In the face of facts that there is no ancient or modern MS. or any descriptive reference of it in any early or late work to vouch for its authenticity, 2 one may well be justified to take such a view. Along with this should be considered the following facts about the PS. : (i) It has been styled as the Vedaiiga Siksa by Sayana and Madhustidana Sarasvati. (ii) It has no less than what may be called five different recensions, and numerous MSS. of each such recension. (m) It has two old commentaries. Thus we see that in marked contrast to the PS. the DPS., the alleged phonetic Sutras of Panini, have remained in oblivion for about two millennia and a half to be discovered only at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Though such a discovery may not be totally impossible, one need be very cautious in such matters. The discovery of Kautilya's and Bhasa's works cannot be brought here as a parallel case, for quotation from these works have been shown to have occurred in fairly old documents. 32. Prom materials which Dr. Raghu Vira has so ably collected in his article 3 we can well see that the DPS. is not an old work. On referring to a recent catalogue (p. 12) of the Vaidika Pustakalaya, Ajmer (Samvat 1988), publisher to the Arya Samaja, we find that the DPS. constitutes the first among 1 The Varna-suferas have been given in the Appendix. Dr. Paul Thieme seems to dis believe that the Pacini's Siksa of Dr. Baghu Vira was quoted by Pataiijali (see op. cit., p. 86) 2 Non-existence of any MS. of the DPS. has al--o raised a doubt in the mind of Dr. Paul Thieme as regards the authorship of the work {ibid.). 3 JBAS, 1931, pp. 653 ff. xlviii THE PJNINIYA glKSA the fourteen sections of the Vedanga Prakasa, a grammar which Svami Day&nanda compiled for the use of the 7edic students. It is probably due to inadvertence that Dr. Raghu Vira did not mention this fact in his article. The different sections of the Vedanga Praka£a including the first one have also been issued separately. The first of these sections bears the title of the Varnoc- carana-Siksa by Panini. This sutra-work as has been shown by Dr. Raghu Vira (loc. cit.) resembles the Varna-sutras of Candragomin, the Buddhist grammarian, who flourished about 500 A.C. 1 Considering the great influence which "Candragomin exercised on the grammarians of Panini' s school (the KMka and the Vakyapadiya showing traces of such influence) it is quite possible that some late grammarian re-edited and amplified the Varna-sutras of Candragomin and fathered this upon Panini, evi- dently for imparting to it a superior authority. Though there is no suflicient material to prove this we are inclined to suggest that this late grammarian was Svami Dayananda himself who, among other things was a very close student of Sanskrit gram- mars as his Vedangapraka^a and the edition of Panini's Asta- dhyayi show. But whatever may be the actual fact about the authorship of the DPS., it is sure that the work is neither from the hands of Panini nor an old one. 2 33. Its Author. Now if we are sure about the fact that the PS. is the real Vedanga Siksa we shall have to take up the problem of its authorship. Though the work has probably been drawn upon by very old authors 3 its author has not been 1 This date is assigned by S. R. Belvalkar (Systems of Skt. Grammars, p. 58). Dr. Siddheshwar Varma places C. in the 7th century (See his Critical Studies, p. 8) at the latest. 2 Dr. Paul Thieme with a somewhat different line of argument disallows the genuine- ness of Panini's Phonetic Sutras discovered by Dr. Baghu Vira (see his Panini and the Veda, p 86). We do not agree with him on all points. 3 Dr. Paul Thieme thinks that if Patafijali knew the PS. as Pacini's work, he would have referred to it 'in unambiguous terms' and would have treated it with the same respect as Panini's grammar (p. 86). Hence, as the PS. has not been referred toby Patafijali, one may according to Dr. Thieme reject its relation with Panini. Bat it would be a mistake to place too much confidence on the argument of silence, which may be otherwise explained. INTRODUCTION - x\ix mentioned till very late (see § 28). The earliest evidence about the existence of the complete work is perhaps the Agni Puraiia which isu sually placed in the 800 A.C. But it does not refer to Panini as the author of the Siksa though in case of the metrical version of Pingala's prosody the source has been mentioned (see Notes on 1). This can well be taken to mean that to the compiler of the Agni Purana the authorship of the PS. was not known. But we have seen before (§ 29) that Madhusudana Sarasvati in the 15th century in no unambiguous terms considers Panini to be the author of this Siksa though the Siksa-Prakas'a, a commentary to the PS. which is possibly earlier (c. 1200 A.C.) than Madhusudana, ascribes the latter work to Pingala. Thus the problem of the authorship of the PS. with its late and mutually conflicting data seems to possess no dependable means for its solution. But we need not feel hopeless in the matter. External evidence failing we turn to the PS. itself and find some important hints which are being discussed below. (a) It is usually known that Panini was a great grammarian but his greatness as a phonetician is no less considerable. But unfortunately it has scarcely been noticed and far less em- phasised. This sort of defective appreciation of Panini is due to the mistaken notion commonly held that the Prati^akhyas, even if they are not actual grammars, are grammatical writings. 1 But in fact the Pratisakhyas are purely phonetical treatises. Viewed in this light we find that Panini has treated in his gram- mar svara (pitch) and matra (quantity) of vowels as well as samhita (euphonic combination). 2 These items as we have seen before (§16) are, according to the Taitt. Upanisad, the three 1 Winternitz, Vol. Ill, pp. 381-882; Laksbman Sarup, the Nighan$u and the Nirukta, English Translation and Notes, London, 1921, p. 220; S. Varma, Critical Studies in the Phonetic Observation of Indian Grammarians, pp. 14*15 ; S. Sastri, 'The Rktantra,' In- troduction, pp. 1-2. s The Aatadbyayi treats of svara ia chapters VI (1. 58-2, 199) and VIII (1. 27-71) and in many other places. The matra has been treated in chapter VI (3. Ill, 138) and the samhita in Chapters VI (1. 72 f and 3. 114f) and VIII (3. 1-4 j 4348). G 1 THE PININIYA SIKSI among the six branches of the Siksa or phonetics. Can there be a better evidence of Panini's masterly knowledge of phone- tics? But this evidence alone is not sufficient to identify Panini with the author of the PS. "What we may gather from the above is that of the two names Panini and Pingala proposed for the authorship of the PS. the case for the former is stronger. (b) Besides this a comparison of the contents of the Asta- dhyayi and the PS. further strengthens the claim of Panini to the authorship of the PS. From such comparison we gather the following facts 1 pointing to the handiwork of the same author, (i) In the PS. Paninian Pratyaharas, such as ac, car, ghaS, yan, ja§, $ar, hal, have been requisitioned. (ii) ku, cu, tu, tu and pu have been used to indicate res- pectively k, c, t, t and p groups. This convention has been for- mulated in the Astadhyayi (I. 1. 69) anudit savarnasya ca 'pratyayah. (Hi) The PS. (17) includes the Anunasika into speech-sounds while its definition has been given in the Astadhyayi (I. I. 9.) mukha-nasika-vacano ' nanasikah. (iv) The explanation of terms like hmsva, dirgha and pluta has also been given there (I. 2. 27, ukalo'j hrasva-dirgha-plutah) , (v) According to a rule of nd-tva as laid down in the As|;a- dhyayl (VIII. 4.1). n after r and § turns to n. From this we get r as a cerebral sound. According to the PS. (11) too r as well as s is a cerebral sound (Pratisakhyas have r either in the roots of the teeth or close to the teeth (see Varma, op. cit., p. 6). All these fairly settle the question of the authorship of the PS. Now the important question arises which of - the two, the Astadhyayi and the PS., was composed first. To find this out we must remember once more the different braDches of the Siksa as enumerated in the Taitt. Upanismd, " varna, svara, matra, bala, sama and santana. Panini as we have 1 Pacini's Siksa brought to ligLt by Dr. Bagbu Vira lacks similar facts, hence Dr. Paul Tibiae rightly rejects the genuineness of the work (see op. cit., p. 86). INTRODUCTION li seen before (§33 a) treated svara, matrd and santana (samhita) in his grammar. Of the remaining 1 three branches bala and sama can, scarcely be the fit subject of a theoretical treatise. Hence varna (speech-sounds) alone was left without treatment in the Astadhyayi. Now Panini, who undertook to build up his great Sabdanus'asana, the Vyakarana-Vedanga, 1 could not very naturally think of leaving varna without any treatment. This is probably the reason why he wrote the PS. which is as it were a companion to his famous grammar. 34. It may now be asked why Panini wrote the PS. in metre and not in prose sutras. We may think that such a question is not difficult to answer. Considering the simplicity and shortness of the subject to be treated Panini, it may be assumed, adopted in case of the &iksa the metrical style which for the Astadhyayi with its complex subject-matter would have been quite unfit. 35. Now this being practically certain that the PS. as re- constructed here, is from the hands of Panini we get some rough idea about the age of the work. But as the PS. seems to offer some fresh data for this purpose we shall discuss below various points of view on Panini' s age and try to suggest some time in which the great Indian grammarian was likely to have flourished. Panini has variously been placed between 800 B.C.- 400 B.C. 2 The view of those who hold that Panini should be placed in about 350 B.C. should be considered first. 8 Their main argument against an earlier date is the fact that Panini 1 Winternitz does not admit (Hist, of .Tnd. Lit., Vol. Ill, p. 383) that the Astadhyayi of Panini is a Vedanga, but this is against the traditional Indian view. MadbusMana in his Praathanabheda writes ^TfT ft^PfsoT^ ^Tff' flTf^CfaajPeTra* (ed. Weber, pp. 16-17). In the introduction to the Siddhanta Kaumudi (ed. Venkatesvar, Bombay, 1914) Mahamahopadhvaya Pandit Shivadatta Sbastri discusses the claim of all extant Vyakaranas for Vedangatva and concludes qifa^STWireN ^^TFaPyTO^ ^ ( Pp. 6*8). 2 Winternitz, Vol. III. pp. 383 f; S. K. Ohatterji, op. cit, p. 50; Macdonell, India's Past, p. 136; Liebich, Panini, p. 8; Keith, HOS, Vol. 18, pp. clxviii f. Goli&tiicker, Panini, 1861. Dr. Paul Thieme very rightly characterizes the use of this date as "due to a common but wholly unproved belief (op. cit., p. 83). Hi THE PININIYA SlKSA used the word yavana which they think could not have entered India before Alexander's invasion. But this argument has been very ably refuted by ProfessorsS.lv. Belvalkar and H. Skold — Belvalkar, Systems of Skt. grammar, pp. 15 If.; Skold, Papers on Panini, pp. 24 ff.). The latter has shown very conclusively "that old Indian yavana must have entered this language before 520 B. 0., and there is no reason at all to locate Pacini as late as after Alexander the Great on account of the here- quoted sutra." "Moreover Prof. Liebich has proved that P a ni n i's rules apply to the language of the Brahmanas, some obsolete (perhaps archaic) forms only separating his language from that of the Brahmanas (Papers on Panini, p. 38)." On the basis of this finding of Prof. Liebich, Prof Skold thinks that Panini must have belonged to the latter Vedic period of the Indian literature (loc. cit,). Prof. Liebich however is not willing to assign Panini to a period before Buddha (Panini, p. 8; Winternitz, Vol. Ill, p. 383). But he seems to have been over- cautious in the matter. For he himself admits, according to Prof. Skold, that Panini seems to be less lax than that of the Sutras (op. cit., p. 41.) 1 Prof. Skold concludes on the basis of this view of Prof. Liebich that we could be inclined to place Panini in a period shortly preceding the Sutra literature proper (loc. cit.) Now the sutra works which are considered to be among the oldest have been placed in 500 B.C. (Macdonell, India's Past, p. 136). 36. Prom the above discussion it appears that Panini was most probably earlier than 500 B.O. And there seems to be other facts too which seem to corroborate this. view. For ex- ample the Astadhyayl which mentions the Brahmana literature no less than four times (II. 3. 60; IV. ',. 66, 3. 103; V. 1. 62) and distinguishes between the old and the new Brahmanas, does not refer to the Aranyaka literature though the word 'aranyaka' 1 Keith on the doubtful authority of Panini, VI. 1, 157, concludes that the grammarian knew Paraskava the sutrakara. His views about Panini'a acquaintance with Katyayana the fSrautasutraktlra, and the KausSika sutrakara also seems to be inadmissible. (Translation of the Yajurveda, p. clxix.) INTRODUCTION liii in the sense of * forest dweller ' has once (IV.. 1 . V29) been men- tioned. That Katyayana composed a Varttika to extend the use of the word c aranyaka ' to an adhyaya (most probably of the Brahmana) may be taken to mean that in Panini' s time the Aranyaka appendices to the Brahmanas were not yet written or even if they might have been written they were not styled as the Aranyakas. Now accepting the second alternative as being more likely we can place Panini at the close of the Brahmana period. Along with this we should mark another fact, viz., the non-occur- rence of the word 'upanisad' in the sense of 'secret, instructions' 1 and religio-philosophical texts containing them in Panini's Asta- dhyayi (Panini, I. 4. 79, indeed has the word 'upanisad' in the compound upanisafkrtvaY which literally means ' sitting very close to', i.e., in a private manner. Now we may well conclude that the Aranyakas which contain Upanisads were not old at the time of Panini, for they were not yet known as Aranyakas or Upanisads. Now the oldest among the Upanisads are con- sidered to have been compiled about 500 B.C. 8 Hence we should not place Panini later than 500 B.C. It is likely that Panini lived some time earlier than this. 4 The diphthongal cha- racter of e and o which Panini has recorded in his Siksa (L3) shows that the langaage described by him was in the same stage of evolution as the Old Persian of the Cuneiform Inscriptions (600 B.C.) of Persepolis. For this latter language too has diph- thongs corresponding to our e and o (see Meillet, ^rammaire du Vieux Perse, pp. 55 ff.). As we have no Old Persian Siksa we do not know what the actual phonetic value of diphthongs ai (Skt.e) and au (Skt. o) was. It is likely that the graphic system was ahead of the phonetic development. The fact that Panini has 1 Deusaen, Philosophy of Upanishads, pp. 10-15. Dasgupta, History of Indian Philo- sophy i p. 38- 2 Cf. Keith. Tr. of Yajurveda, HOS., p. olxvii. 3 Dasgupta, op. tit., p. 39. 4 Dr. Paul Thieme seems to support such a conclusion in his following remark: "Pa- nini's grammar must have been composed at a time when the language of the North was yet felt to be necessary " (op. tit. , p. 81). liv THE PININIYA SIKSA given rules in his grammar of the proper accentuation of the bha§a words (VI. 1. 181, vibhasa bhasayam; VIII. 2.98, Purvam tu bhaqayam) shows that the current language of his time was much ahead of the classical Sanskrit (which has lost its accents) and was nearer the Vedic phase (though in its very late form) of the Old Indo-Aryan than the latter. In addition to this we should also reckon the fact that Panini's grammar was originally accented like a Mantra or Brahmana text (vide ante § 26) and as such it should be assigned at the latest to the close of the period of the Brahmanas. COMMBNTAKIES TO THE PS. 37. The Siksa Patijika. The MSS. and the printed text from which the present edition has been re-constructed have been described before (§ 26) in connexion with the text of the P5j. re- cension of the PS. We are now .giving below the main features of the commentary reconstructed. The Pnj. recension of the PS. as we have seen before (§ 26) came into existence between 800 and 1100 A. C. Hence the Panjika itself may be tentatively placed somewhere in the 12th century. Thus the work which may be as old as seven centuries is sure to contain some old materials. Some of these, such as a reference to Audavraji, has already been pointed out (§ 2b). These materials will be discussed below. According to the Panjika, the Siksa, is the science by which the pronun- ciation of speech-sounds is learnt (giktyate'nayd, varnoccaranam iti $ite, p. 8, lines 3-4). This is to be compared with the term vamas'iksa occurring in the BPr. (XIV. 30). It is not possible that the author of this work has referred by this term to Prati- slkhya and this being the case varnas'iksa relates to the Siksa of the early period when it still lacked the later elaboration as observed in the Pratisakhyas (see §§ 16, 23). Hence the RPr. has scarcely any legitimate claim to interpret this word as Tratisakbya', which must have existed considerably earlier than the time when the KPr. was compiled. The Panjika in the definition of Siksa quoted above seems to have preserved this tradition which agreed so well with the fact that the PS. deals merely with the utterance of the speech-sounds of the Old Lido- Aryan as represented in Vedic texts. Besides this it gives us rare informations on the following points : (a) There are two anusvaras (p. 10, line 14; p. 12, lines 9-10). No other authorities seem to have taken notice of this fact. lvi THE PlitflNIYA SIKSA (b) A quotation from the Brhadarauyaka Up. (p. 15, lines 22-23) occurring in this commentary varies to some extent from the text of this work as received from Sankaracarya. (c) In the reconstruction of the PS. 13 this commentary has given a valuable hint (see p. 18, lines 6-7). From this hint we may assume .that the author of- the Panjika had PS. 13 as reconstructed by us. But he however could not rightly explain this passage. (d) It gives us the old name for anusvara as anusvarah nasi- hyah (p. 18, lines 12-13). For details about the anusvara see Note 27. So much for the importance of the Panjika. In spite of its valuable aspects it should not be considered infallible. It has the weakness of average commentaries of Skt. and Pkt. works. Some- times it gives information and explanation which are not accu- rate. "For example, the Panjika considers prayatna as twofold ,in spite of its Siksa text (see p. 14, line 13). It is possible that he failed to understand the passage (18) properly. The same appears to be the case in its determination of the quantity of the component parts of e, o and ai, au (See p.. 18, lines 6-7; and Note 23). The author of the Panjika is ignorant about the author- ship of the PS. which it considers to have been written in con- formity with the teaching of Panini. In this he simply be- lieved what was given in the first couplet (Paninlyam matam yatha, of the Pnj. version of the Siksa). This however weakens the testimony of the author of ■ the Siksa-Prakaia commentary, ..who considers that Pingala, the younger brother of Panini, was fche author of the PS. (p.. 23, line 8). 37. 'The 8ik§a-Praka4a. This commentary has been received in corrupt 1 MSS., at leasfc the two we could directly or indirectly use are such (see § 2 c). It is inferior in worth to the Panjika discussed above. But it has importance in the fol- lowing points : 1 The conniption is most palpable in the passage at p. 26, lines 22 ff. INTRODUCTION lvii (a) It ascribes the authorship of the PS. to Pingala,- the younger brother of Panini (see p. 23, line 7). The authenticity of this information has been discussed before (§23). (b) It defines the Siksa as a science for the utterance of (proper) pitch (of vowels) and speech-sounds in general (§iksa, svaravarnoccarakam Sastram, p. 23, line 15). This is different from the definition given in the Panjika (see §37). Appar- ently slight though this definition is, it is not without impor- tance. In the Panjika definition we find speech-sounds only as subject of instruction while in the Prakas'a svara (pitch accent) comes in. It may be assumed that the two definitions point to two distinct traditions having their origin in two successive stages in study of Vedic Phonetics. That is, speech-sounds came first of all to be studied and the pitch received attention later or at least was treated in a 3astra later (see also §12). (c) In the reconstruction of the PS. 13 this commentary gives valuable help. Though the MSS. are defective on this point the original reading of the passage before the author of the Prakas'a can easily be guessed from them (see p. 31, line 16). ' (d) This commentary ascribes to the Brhaddevata of Saunaka the following couplet : svaro varno'- ksaram matra viniyogMham (?) em m, mantram jijmsamanem veditavyarn pade pade (pi 24, lines 6-7). 38. Of the two available commentaries of the PS., the Siksa- Panjika seems to be the earlier because it is written in a simpler style and has better acquaintance with the old phonetical traditions. The first point will be clear to any one who will compare for himself the languageof the two commentaries. And to substantiate the second point we shall refer the treat- ment of the Anusvara. About the exact manner of its pronuncia- tion there is difference of opinion among specialists in the Indo- Aryan linguistics (see Wackernagel, I. §§223-224). Whitney understands the phooetic value of the Anusvara which is nothing but the nasal vowel (T. Pr. 2. 30, JAOS., Vol. 10, p. Ixxxvi; lviii THE PANINIYA SIK$X Mem. Soc. ling. 2. 194 ft. ref. Wackernagel). But Wacker- nagel and others do not accept this. After a fresh examination j of the various Pratis'akhya passages together with the opinion of j PS. on this point we find Whitney to be right. The Anusvara ; is nothing but a nasalization of the preceding vowel. The j fuller name of the Anusvara was Anusvara-Afasi&t/aA or Anusvarah j Nasikyah, a post-vocal nasal or a nasal vowel. It has some- j times been called simply Nasika or Ndsikya too. That the name j Anunasika, which according to Panini (1.1.8) means only nasal j stops, has been used to indicate nasal vowels for a pretty long J time, seems to have been due to a misunderstanding (more about j this point in Notes to the PS.). I 39. Now the anonymous author of the Siksa-Panjika seems j to have been fully aware of the true nature of the Anusvara. \ Hence in his comment on Pnj. 17 (PS. 14-15) he quotes j I from Audavraji an entire passage enumerating the Ayogavahas i as follows : This passage occurs in the first Prapathaka of ths Ektantra (ed. j S. Sasfcri, p. 2 t 11. 11-12) with the difference that the latter roads j f fa^^rfac. (v.l. fefa^Tfa^, «ITfira:). v In view of the fact that the Ektantra mentions ^g^fT^t not much later, and *T5OTC | as one of the Ayogavahas, it is evident that the extant Ektantra ! is corrupt in the passage ff*ftf*jwfofi:. The reading ^ 5^301 <: j 5TTfTO: surely goes to the Ur-text of the Audavraji 1 which must I have been partially included in his work by the author 2 or the j Vrttikara or the Ektantra. ! 1 But some of the other quotations in the Pafijika from Audavraji are corrupt. (Se* below.) 2 Audavraji who has been mentioned in the sutra 60 of the Rkfcantra can scarcely be its author. The first Prapajhaka which is not coun ted as an integral part of the Rkfcantra by the MS. B was in all likelihood a part of the original work of Audd-vraji (see ed. 8. Sastri, Introduction, p. Si). iNtfBODUOTIOH . lix 40. Thus it appears that the author of the Pa&jika flourished at a time when the original work of Audavraji was still available in a more or less correct form and in fact he may be older than the Vrttikara of the Rktantra who appears by no means to be modern. Thus apart from offering a help in solv- ing certain problems connected with the text of the PS. (see frote) the Siksa-Panjika has importance on account of the infor- mation it gives about Audavraji, who has been mentioned, as far as we know, in four other works : — the Naradiya Siksa (II. 8. 5) and the Siksa-Prakasa commentary to the PS. and the Vams'a Brabmana of the Sama Veda (Ind. Stud. IV, pp. 374-386) and the Bktantra (S. 60) 1 ". Some of Audavraji' s passages cited in the Siksa Paujika occur in the Rktantra with its vrtti and some occur in a distorted manner and some do not occur. Let us quote them below in a classified manner. (a) Occurring in full. i. ^FT^n^^lit *(«* 2RT, q j lij J<K : ($T. 2. 14). a. ws zKitf wrhn^ ^sretrewRTij CRT. 3. i) . Hi. *%m§ ^ ^rf sais^rct, iraiftff fHSf*w (BT. 2. 14. 15). (b) Occurring with different readings. t. ft^T^Ht (c/. K-T. 3. 3. ^r^Tg^WT:) The correct reading seems to have been ft ^sUTSTgir^Rt I cf. qfi fa nw wfafa *r* fa-i^i ^faarfoinr. (ST. 7. 1-2) The ET. reading seems to be correct. sqw^fa < ^3*3tt; *tifaW, WOtWWT: (Difl. with RT. shown above) . 1 The very fact that the Pafijika does not quote from any of the late Sik?a works except the N«wllya Siksa probably show that these latter are later in origin than the Pajika or at least they were not yet counted as authority at its time. Prom this fact also we may assume the old age of the Pafijika. lx THE PANINXYA SIKSA (C/. siiretrataTWJ 1 fl^taT^ IWRT*IT*pit^g«fat (RT. 3. 3) also ^m\ ^ftww: ii$n (RT. 7. 10). (c) Not occurring, i. fa%T3fraT TTT^r WT3 I Besides Audavraji the Panjika has laid the following works under contribution : Aitareya Brahmana, Srtiti, Ohandogya Sruti (Upanisad), Panini's Astadhyayl, Unadi Sutras, Bhagavad. G-Ita, Patanjaii, Manusamhita, Rk-Pratis'akhya, Naradlya £>iksa. 41. In spite of its importance discussed above the author of the Panjika seems to have misunderstood the PS. very much; for example, his explanation of PS. 13 ( = Pnj. 15) may be cited (see Note 23). But in this matter he seems to have been mis- guided by Uvata 1 if the latter was his predecessor, or both he and Uvata born long after Panini, when the Middle Indo-Aryan speech-habits had already overwhelmed to a certain extent the purity of the Phonetic tradition among the Vedic priests, have independently failed to explain correctly the difference between e and o with ai and au respectively. Other features of the Panjika have been discussed in Notes. 42. The Siksa-Prakasa or the Prakas'a does not seem to be a very old commentary to the PS. Some points regarding its date have been mentioned before. The Praka^a quotes verbatim a passage (p. 23) from Visnumitra' s commentary to the Rk- Prafcisakhya. Now we do not possess any definite evidence about the time of Visnumitra. The fragment of his writing prefixed to the available MSS. of Uvata's commentary to the RPr. shows that he enjoyed some popularity among the Vedic priests and hence his fragment was saved from oblivion by putting it at the beginning of Uvata's work. Thus we may assume that Visnumitra was not later than Uvata (11th century A.C.) 1 Uvata (on VPr, I. 78) is right bo far in hia aualysis of ai an/1 au, a-element of tnth beinur taken as equivalent to a matra, but his remark ^%^ sfit'tf ^irdfirct arPSTffit is not clear and the view of unnamed authority (kecid) quoted by him is misleading. INTRODUCTION " ixi This gives us the upper limit to the Prakasa; the lower limit is to be had from the author's conjectural identity with the com- mentator of the Pingalacchandah-Sufcras. This is 1300 A.C. 43. This commentary (Prakasa) quotes from Panini, Yaska, Naradlya Siksa, Gautami Siksa, Saunaka, Patanjali aud Audavraji. The only quota tion from the last authority seems to be taken not from any original work of Audavraji but from some author who quoted him. The case with the author of Panjika was different, for he quoted as much as he could (see before). The fact that the Prakasa 'does not quote any of the late Siksas except the Naradlya and the Grautami Siksa probably shows that it is not quite modern. Jxii THE PlNINlYA dlKSI Table G A Conspectus of Text-units of different Beeensions, showing their relative position. Note. — Numerals indicate the serial number of hemistiches in a particular recension. Hemisticlie. a •8 m n d .2 a 4) H a .2 § o <0 M p o 'm a g t S3 a V s 3 -2J o P m a o u atba dikijssip etc. 1 1 1 1 ... sastranu-par^yaip „ 2 2 2 t 2 ... prasiddham api „ 3 3 3 3 punar vyakfcf- ,, 4 4 4 4 ... tri?a§ti^ catu§- ,, 5 5 5 6 cf 1 Prakrte Sarpskfte „ 6 6 6 6 •• svafa Yiqp^atir „ 7 7 7 7 2 1 ySdaya6 ca f , 8 8 8 8 3 3 anusvaro visarga6 », 9 9 9 9 4 9 dufrspretaiS cfiti „ ... ... 10 10 10 10 5 4 fttma baddhya „ 11 15. 11 11 8 5 manab kayagnim „ 12 16 12 12 9 6 maratas tflrasi „ 13 17 13 13 10 7 pratafc-savanayogatp,, 14 18 14 14 11 8 ba^he madhyan- „ ... ... 15 19 15 15 12 9 taraip tartlyasavanaip,> 16 20 16 16 13 10 aodlr^o murdhna- ,> 17 2L 17 17 14 11 vanjafi janayate ,, 18 22 18 18 15 12 svaratali k&Iatalj >, 19 23 19 19 16 13 ili varpa-vidab i, 20 24 20 20 14 udattai cinudattaiS ,, .. ... 21 45 •21 21 17 15 INTEODUCTION Table C— (contd.) lxiii Hemistiches. J a 8 a 02- d 2 '3 a <D u e '5* a o CO a s> 2 CM d *m a id J s g si i u m g irasvo dlrghalfr etc. 22 46 •22 22 18 16 udatte ni§ada- ,, 23 27 •23 Bvarita-prabhava ,, 24 28 25 *24 ... asfcau sthanani ,, 25 25 23 19 17 jihvamahip ca ,, 26 26 26 24 20 18 obhavas" ca ,, 27 29 »27 21 iihvanmlam upadhma ,, 28 30 *28 22 yady obhftva > ,, 29 31 *29 23 svar&ntaip. ,, 80 82 *30 24 bakaratp paflcamair „ 31 13 31 ... 6 19 anraayarp tarn ,, 32 14 82 1 7 ... kanfliyav aba vicu „ 33 47 48 33 25 33 21 syur murdhanya „ 34 35 34 26 34 22 jihvamule tu ,. 49 35 27 35 28 e ai tu ka?|ha- „ 86 50 40 28 36 24 ardhamatra tu ,, 37 51 41 29 37 25 ai(o)karankarayor »» 38 52 | 42 30 ... 26 upadhmSnlya usmS „ 53 43 32 ... 28 satpvjtarp matrkarp „ 39 40 41 57 ... ... ... ghos* va «»amvjtak ,, ... ... ... ... Bvaraij*m usmanarp ,, 45 ... tebhyo' pi vivytav 42 58 46 27 anusvara-yaminaip ,, ... ... v 43 44 45 ««• 81 27 ayogavaha vrfleya 54 44 33 38 29 alabu-vi^a- „ 55 86* 34 ... 80 annsvaras-tu. ,, 46 56 37* 35 81 anusvare vivfty&ip ,, 47 _ ... lxiv THE PININTYA glESI Table C — (contd.) Hemistiches. a o 'S3 a 01 o <u k. M pa- a .2 "x/i p <u o « M ■ "S a .2 a <D o 8 i CM d _o 'm el « u Fm •2 CD fa < 1 to a © dvir o^thau tu etc 48 ... ... ... vyaghti yatha .» 49 89 . 58 ... bblta patanabheda ,, 50 40 59 yatha saurastrika ,, 51 •88 evaip ranga >» 52 ,*39 raflga-varnam ., 53 ... dTrgha-svararp „ 54 hrdaye caika- ,, 55 iiasikayaW i> 56 hydajat ntkate ., 57 _1_ ... ... ... mardavarp ca dvimatraqi,, 58 ... ... liiadhye tukampayefc ,, 59 ... ... sarangam kampayet ,. 60 ... evaqa varj?ab .. 61 41 60 31 ... satnyag-varna- ,, 62 42 61 ... 32 ... abhyfisarfcbe drutaip „ ... 43 62 ... 6isyaiiam npade^Srthe ,, 44 63 ... ... gltl liighri 63 anarthajfio' lpa- * ,. 64 ... ... ... madhnryam aksnra- 65 dhairyaip laya- ,, 66 ... ... ... sadkifcarp bhltarp ,. 67 klkasvararp 6irapigaip ,, 68 ... urSm^u-dastatp „ 69 ... ... nispi^itaip grasta- ,, 70 ... ' prSfcHb pathen »» 71 ... madhyandiDe ,, 72 ... ... en I- *f^tf ^fl[ ( ^h Reconstructed Text ) [ ^^mrara: ] r ^r » ^ m ii ^ *r m ii 15 ^t ^^ 11 t* ^ ^ || f *T 3 T £ |l ^flll sc * s* *r 1 mi *ff *r ^11 X " X X "V ^ 3 *T * II 3f *[ *f S ^ IT II ^^W3^^^cl^|| X, x. x mmiw *r v * x 11 1 ^ 11 ] x xx-* [ m^m ] [ ^wrfcpi^ ^^fernra ] mm hit H^srofij; *Rt 5^ f^Rn 1 ^ro: ^rr^frr: ^irtcj; i*m<?u«j^m<i: i $# |Hr: Her ^r w*rat fawT ^fa ifh ^nfw ^ot ^nr ^^ett: mmi win oT^tiginftwr ^ *rrf^f w<*: sjm: «?ou # 1*1 II. ^srfag^BnifliraT (The Agni-Purana Recension) ii J On ^kisf cf f^rHNnq ^w*iwgc?*i i ii3ii *rc: ^RTfe?nf ftr s Swfir JTOOT* | ||4ll 12 3TTfT:^R?t^f ci l^t ^qGRrfacI*[ I srs 13 *n^f^r?pr ^ #WTgn^ ik ii 1. M. fipar^. 2. M. sr^if^rr:. 3. M. **n for w:. 4. M. ifogft for x qrXfl. 5. M. wM for qnfira^. 6. M. fttm. 7. MP&c. w*: for ^to. 8. In all MSS. after 3a occurs the following : k.w^ # m $\m f^nr: W%*?r: I w?nft: srergir: <*fk: to nm *•, \\ For wsr # ^ Pac read ^f 5 #s^ and for ^tw tmi P&c read jftfPRSRK, and for wm *m *: P&c has to tj to. M. *ru«gw mm*. 9. V. om. See Introduction 2a. 10. M. **%£. 1 J. M, *** for *r?', M6. unni. 12. M, °^. 13. M. n^far wf, cut ?n?ffaroRH ?ft$i® ^TW«3*PRr i 11611 ^irf^r ^r^ ftat fwnr: w*tt sjcn 1 ll7an ^rccf: ^nwr: wrtcj; ^^mgq^T^rcr: iri h8ii ir# <£tl; ¥ cr ^fa ^rast fami *rf¥ «e« ■9r f^WTi^ ^ ?*ra >rrfe«lt 1 in* * „? .1 <skrt mssti firsn^ ^srera*^: iirii 1. P. flW^R^TTcn. 2. M. °*lfa. 3. M. ^*m f%if%^T and P. ^rgwCr fwfer for ^fam fa?f?re. 4. M. gr<ftaf<?\ 5. P. reads x^i-pctf tfT^nrcw :gw^ instead of 135 ( t iww etc.) and M. t^giTTW %**{' 6. M. *frcntf. - 7. M. nciar&r. 8. P&cd give this couplet preceded by ?mr smft f^[ HWI^-e'fpaf *r ^r tJMq i— (Yajus. 20a). P. gives 17b-18a as its 18, and 19b-20a as its 20, . nl3an ^r#*rrwT 3 3 ^^j^r q^l^rn^^rj i nl6bn ^r%^HT ^^fhsrfNrarer/ sm: 5 ^jm: i w: qrt to ftwr c fr%mgR<?Hcr: ir°ii ii I7n ^sgTTftRTT ^ft *rrf^rt wra: ^jm: i iw^T 8 ^ srer ^nfftR^r 9 *§wr^n i 1. P. ehW^Tfa^stT. 2. P. °clM5JfT H ^. . 3. MV. 3pi?i ^Tf^rcffR . 4. P. %t: fa) *reT: and M. *ft w. *rei: for -%r*reT:. 5. MV. arc; for srt:. 6. PM. fafhfPF Jnfl*l?r: for f«r^^i»[Ji^iii?T: 7. M. *w1sg*rTf€3iT ij^t *nfaft. 8. P. rfflt^, M. ir(cr)^ [?ra:. 9, M- «RH^;- 10. P. t^Tai. 1*1 m - q^^T-^fen ( witl1 the Panjika ) TfT^J ^T fasff^TraT 44 Id-**** *TC^?TT I ^srfa'5|iJ?eTOT?R\f?n ^TOOTWH^ I ^T«i^dM-di*4^- ^fT^fM^^I IT^MWRI^fNrR^I iRt^wftr^^— 1. Before this A X B have *frr<iNira tt: ; A 1 also ^" sffft TiTTO^, A 2 H *i«i ^I^rfaraTRTT^: ^TOR *W and B tng ?ft. 2. BfiTitfT . 3. IB farer arfmrntf wr<rwrat 4. A 2 °^s*&i. 6. A 2 owiis ^r. 6. BHL omit f. 7. A 1 omits y&; ... t^. 8. fai^r for fwi ^m°- 9. H. f^ftet. 10. B* fiwraT *W*rf. " 11. A 2 omits ^. 12. B omits T^ ft 13. HLA 2 "fiRifa wrf*T j B. °*ifafft WTfr, « qiftrcta-firoT z^TOfaft $mi, <i\ mm *mfa OTftwrftr i m ftr ^ 4 <r ?f fasraftfsn i *r cr fa fin d( m wW qiftr^r **r? irrt w ?wt jn^rrfr ito ubitot^N 4 qfwpraT '^%<t$m q Wilwf ^nfif (qT- M.^)^fiM ^ sqr^^ JH^pm,*T?rT& 7 %fifl fT?ra *fir ifc: i mw^^sgf ?r fir sit ft fin aimfafir srrt; g^ ^iwra: i *nggj$fi?fir s^sw: i crf^fir mfti^mq^w: i B wi qiWwrl^T'eiTfq fa'^T^^^WSHgigstf fa«qT5 *ISFW«wt SH^H I qTW*HRw ^g<j4* * to?to: *x q^rosrc: i ?hit ^r *w«fir-- fen3: i ?wt ^ "m^^ro— "* ^^ Afirau: si^t^t q* %f%^rr^f ^ 12 ^mrf:'' *fir u?n *"» fir'w fic fir i niftftjftfft: nftrewfq jrottofimt lf W 1. HILB^Tw. 2. A^to^. 3. H*rawf. 4. A 1 A 2 °*af *r trf^nisraT. 5. B adds*. 6. AV°^«<d*HWi 7. A 1 ft A 2 owfta «ft i 8. HLA 2 owff ?t?x <TTfW ... arpffoTifc 9. B sfa for ssiTfc. 10. A 9 TOTTfaRrt:. 11. A 2 w«rcrro: 4 12. HLfNtfifo 13, A 1 tiw fSrCRnfaicji, 14. HLA 1 fWr(?). 15. BA 1 quote the entire Slolta 2. 16. A x A 2 ^rt /or ^ff, mat snpft ^Tft m wmt wzwti m\\ nln *n^sr ¥r cit irH ^^n^r sun: mm: \m\ ISrw, ^^t^ 2 3flr^ f%n? ftsT^ i *rg ftfircosproimSt ^ft ^r^, if warainnfii: ; ^ * wjir-^niR* w; «*iifrfr^ **<£! §*St3: « ^ 'sr*ft# ^t^t^^:' sspm i era ftf ^% ^^r?r- s^TOmf^fa % ** virihibiR wn *ft i « 4 ft urn « *- ^ *t ftf si ft t ^ t ft i ^tt ^ft % sIs^fqf^xr^r: , ^^t st^s^t sqr^rifJTft srw^ot: i ^4 3 10 wf^Nft: ? "creregd 1. A 1 A 2 15rsi^R$* 2* B om, ^Tf s 3. A 1 adds *pf. 4.- H •u^i^Tf^Td 5. A 1 q^tff «Pft and A 2 . q<?T*rf f^ferat^I /or ^eR«5f firfw^:. 6. LAH! add ^r fee/ore fWs. 7. G <?^ /or c ^r. ; 8. L ornft* fr. 9. B <*rg;qfe «ftsn*_ 10. B omits,% 11^ , A 1 A 2 omit %'s word ; before this I cm: isKfiMi, 12 4 A 1 cf /or *r?fc • -^ - c &' ..'~ ' f- • I ■ ■■' tlim *c m« ^rr tft& ijwwtenfo: ?a*^«HfiK i ■ w iff nf * *- f# si fa: i 3fn^*ft irmT^r. Wf: i f^T^arf^^sTf^fw: 2 mm qTS3T^ mm n st ft ftn ?rarrcr?3ra 'srer—s" * *r 3 * * * ^t "wTf^fit^csrni;: *r*mT ^t^i ^<tt: i faster ^nf: ^sri? ^ft^lfif^fr: i 12 *g^s^TOg:9feft#tftrrn « S£f "sht fMcR* 'snr^fsi^ftsnwir. ii far. % ^,c-£.) 1. A X A 2 <r qt. 2. A 1 omits °1%fiT,\ 3. A T A 2 "firm- 4. A 2 -yfi ^sr-. 5. MB owits ^^ . 6, H. ^: q^anftsrefa: j I •wfifoerr. 7. CA 1 *re^iftr -mi:, 8. ^^, A 2 ^n?TcT;qK*T *it* t. . -. . 9. A 2 "^rwiiffi *f^ «w:. 10. BBIA 2 o^'t cr«n ^. 11. I A 2 HLB owii #ms and i&e fayo following Alohas. 12. A 1 "fw^cr:. 13. Hs ^c[ g^f -srfw, B. * x X7[ ^cfsfa^ I s*f *rfa*Wi< i L garf'faw. A^tpf THTO* > 14. A 1 spTTsf^s - 15. IBH °^f%«?t T^T, Ai - jrfaRt T* 16, B omrts fiifa^ 17 A B a% tot^..,.,.^ l|2ll fWCTffh ft#5ft ^ItK: ^rft^^ H^W «*ww mm *j«r/ ^fa **iraNta$«K *f*nrrom i ^r *g*- ^wgsrec^fafa nays* ^ijfwrftfa tot^ ft g*rt ^wc ^w^ifa i 2 ^t*j qtg TOwgpiTfifia" («. ht. i,t.*0 ^fa i \^*rr ^jjtwwmr ^3W*t fa* a? 3 fir i wrs H^^^rnc:, [^] ^rg 4 wroMgim^sTT3src: i ^^ft ^ '3«wjw. cutis' *fa i faw sfa i fafatf ^L&Fi faisS •sft firem: i x 3? X ft ^t fa 5 <* u ^ *n fa fa i TOwfafa <*& ^ffTORITft TOraWT* 9*ft# TO^ft i ere? ^ ^2?fa— "^t^^t^t fat st ^3TOT*wfa5u" tfn \ to** I ^iw^«nftw*OTfa ^t^ i y. * 4 s S ft fa OT*s3l3fc£ ^fa I rT^TT ^afapr 8 'cra ^ £ g^tf 3UU|iTiq/ '5;^ Ziper;- 1. B* ^ftrfrRf wft 1% A 1 1 vqfixffii *wt TOFPr*rofif«r, A 2 *iftm(?)ftfo t .2, B. .^rrgq^f, H ^:<tfg, L wfti, A 1 wq ^ I mfaqty, 3. BA 2 $ ^jwisri w° IH ^^gi^r^Tsi^fiT: sre £ 4. A X A*B. "srawgT , IHL. *Rrrcm°, A 8 ^^TO^TWT*f° s 5. B *Klfinit 6. B ° ^ff%. 7. B omits ^rq^tsIxT TOfe 8. IB omit crw, IHXA 2 *p^f for Jtsctf A adds ^tf a/ier in^ctf, ' 9. BHL irtntt ftrejt, IL fcaue in tfte margin ^ufar* 5f3frCt Prat n^BT^^r Wh, B *n(itftr ^ Wfare ^pmt ftafa ^wra? s^:. v ii3ii *H: wntfrmtfrt * awfh iro*? r*ii ar?iT w flrofe: i ^g:srf%: ot^ ? 3-; g~i?t flswlrfa qT3T~rcT?i i ^rt ^<st5^t^ %^T%^f <^rhr# s# *fai m*m -gwfe: «*« -•a> -.-, .£*'. T>— .■ ,a I, ,*\,„ g-r «i^:%^FRtift^f?{ft^ "Tan - ? s^— 5 §?^c[, s^t f~ s~n$ *wt 7 srcftT% i ifo ( W %rr^r i^mnr ritai) 9n iriRita ^t*t 1. A 1 omits ?sfq. 2. IHLA 1 A 2 ^ce^wrofi:, B $-nr. 3. B ^parfr fire*:. 4. BL s^NT ^wfoat, LAU 2 *^Wf (ft) #rsb# (^t), I ?^Nf ^rf^ *fa. 5. A 1 ! ow«» '5pB~ — .- *fa ~f~ 3;, A 2 omtfa 5^Tc| ... $3tTO[» HL v ui xfH before •^srnic[, 6. A J A 2 ^Tg^ifK^r , B T^ajftoTtor:. 7, : HL 5^^:. : 8, B *mw°. wo® ?n^f^pf wm sott*^ « ii5ii <rrt m^f^ra^f ^tim 5wid(«j^ iri situt^ to4 toft wt*m ^$xmmw sf% si^t ^t^ cr^i t\ *r. m w fa ww «§t fa i ?re *Rt fa*p ^ TOiifrwrsfti ^T?nf«f silftTfa^ ^Tfarg^ ffer i h it * s fa *it *s ?* fafa \ ftsfrrefaf a: ^r Trre?f to irosrfer ii^ii *ft *t fa fai urn: *3ifa ^ gt*fts€fa irra:*wrataqwi, *m\ ^ (*8.«l) sfa i ^raa *ira3: 5 ^fawik: ; <srF5$T^fa ^: ii^ii 3f^ ^fai **ror TKfer "trgqpfo **R w^: ^*^tfafa *ri 'eff^s;' (*. ^ *°«) ^fa 3**ara: i *«i fct gsnftft 7 insrfM ^iWTst fa^qa^s^fa^ i ^KftSii cn^re^fafasato- ^spwrsr mi ^tf sNrcafafa *3|rfa ^ to sresraran^ifrr sttfm w^sg^Tf^wj i sn^ra s^ssr^ftfa snrmsr: i sfta%ftfa 1. Ii omits ^ruftwr ftwi w cw» BH ^n6r«®sft 0^2/ . 2. A 1 ^ /or ^. 3 . BHLIA 2 m\ ^ wrsi tfsw 3HT w.^mftft. 4. B has before this *rtOT*Pfl , s*irsra:s 5. BHL omits *tfi\*m : a n& has wm&xm*?. for <m*%tf&fo $^:. 6. BHLCA 2 omit °^f. 7. A 2 L ^sjjfM «^W^- n6a ^ferawf ftai fwrc: w*rc sr <r: lien wi: ^n^rcr: wcfu^ v?mi*FFzmm \ fai ^roN srerw^ firw^ft fa^n sw ^tot: i %mrnx fkvm *f far. u^-sO ^fa ^t i 2 ^<fog*rrr: ]]al *fgf*r#srt iprht 8 q^m ftt€ wre— ^ ?: a: *tf?r i ^sn^ ig^ sroimra: i ^faf ^t?ttt q?rorf :— q^r faiNf mfat fkqwtrmwx § ^crc*:, t^^t^nff ^5c{ ii 1. HL qaftrrora ; B. °<rei 9pnrf?r. 2. A 1 ^tsg*Rf : - 3. A 1 omits TOrar»*TOT¥. 4. BI ifs ^5%: HTf $ftf cl fsr^rcr &<?/ore i/»s. H, puts, f^m before this. 5. ,BHL omit ^*$ v^rmfe *srtesff%:. 6. .LMOomft"^ . *rt«o«TOinwn tor «*?^t*! i ifa %%q§ q$ ^ <£*§ ^ ^pws h ^ita^gifcwi iron** *ta i 8 *rc^w g iOTftf«*f 1." C°^ci%. : 2. ]&SS. *^jm. 3. A!^<' ^^T'fl^g^T'rr^f?!! ma: srrarr ^^ ft t^tfasRtft- <3W^9W«r OTTO w ^m*. I tf wf ^hrrai *ferHfa Irfw." ii (^ fir, * .*.<-*) ^ ?r ^ ^f *fai 3 grt ^ sBroififW. 4 ; t^f ^h ^ is\m \ wm "ftftamreiT *mn wfssiowifa ^t^" (it- fir. \^.*) ^ [ fira*: i fren sr *n^:— "*src ^r. ^ ^N: *?rc ^fcr ^ <*n ^ ^ Hti TO 5 *re firefa * w. «" (it. fa. v*.r) ^f?r wit 1. B omi'fa ?T. 2. A*C ^ I 3. A* read nz s after x^g. 4. B. puts stops after ftw: and ^Wfo 5. A*C °^?r ^*r, fmv^ g ft tfrart -^timt m mjb ft: i nl2|i q§ g ^^cTH^n ^Nrl ^#^ w e nt \\m\ m*m\ g mm® ^T^n:^*^ i u 1331 ^rfkrc^tderi ^dfffOTOT^ wv\ ^ ^n *c wr fir fa i 3 *reTPret ^r^r^^rd ^^ «roc?t sn^ i s 1 v am msrsn: "s^ra* ^wj ^rni^rS ^r vgt marsa: m^mft *tt%§ ^srrc: ^^qforiw: i h^tt ^ qifaifa:— "sngfec^ Wrsr TOJW." (m.M.*L) tfti *5*fircfii " 5 <s* *far. ***** ^ w s to vm 6 ^rT^f^osrf^^»T^: ,, ^fai ^t s sn I ^ **rc qs*k steqtafSl" 1 ^j *H ^ sk g * qT ^fai w%\t*i z*&m 7 tcfiq^T<t ^ *jt*n *rtg: 1 ^ *sn ^ g *r nr ^fa 1 wjrc^refa ^rarwrafif^ ^ ^3 *rcrc 8 huh fir , ST *i% f ft 1 ***& firemf qrfarr: 1 _ ^ nft sit s: *j <St 1 1 ftfai ^qrrct "^tatitfNfftfa qfech *dfa 1 **q 3 qf 5 ^- 1, A* omits. 2. A 1 omits. 3. A X A* sto C wt_. : 4. BLA 2 omit q^i^fcwGT^:. 5. MSS. *wifai *rw$ ^ iN ctfra to* „.°*rc ?fa i 6. L ^n^fawrc:, A 1 ^i^fererwrc:. 7. B. omit ^qrsnrKt *fir I ^TT a 8- A 1 *nw;. 9. BHIL ?&z\ ( BH 5*ta: ) *teiwrt ^ arrat v^ftfa. A* s^tw^ 10. H sffan^, C *fairef? . ^ ; 3 ... -i A « _ „ ^ ._ ____»_, __ ^ CN f^~ »-v lll5 t | — nsfNiftfWt -— — : wm i Q —N <-- * ~N ___ *N . *r qt St fai ^qtqqrer ^"g - Rn?q^c-— ~*q^ i ~g*qT*t foq^ten. x — ^fa fsnB7*|<ifa;, x ~ ~;?a qqn^q;' 6 $r ~3ig~i~: TTfa - ":, wftqqm; I ~ fq^ qfq: *q\qt qnriWtN 7 ifof 3 sNrqqt 3 *ra~ OTWlfsR: I TO g SWTOqtqqr -- «q^ I ifaf *ifc iratonw-: n~^--q* ^%^-qmsfqcr-: i ~g^TT^r ~^q«T¥--g^iR^ qgifir. qTfirf«wq ' qrfiRiT << i^sg~~; w *r «n ftq fai ~ sufSFft, 10? ^t qfanqT ^q fanifq: sp&*sro 2. OA 1 - m^— to i A 3 "n~ i ^-rc~\ 3. A 2 totpi; ^foin - r. B. n° ^t^n^i 4. A 2 — i&r A s omits. 5. H m*\ wit , B °^f ciral I *r«ra g # # ^n%. 6. I A 8 *f i~j^T^g»iTfa~': i A a ~fbi~: iTf%-\ 7. HLB put, ^ a/ie?' £7»s. . 8. A s °*rrfa»u 9. A 8 omits *rt-?™ wl3t*r:. 10. L -qrrggnrfNnn and H — srif 5 ^farer A ' WTs^jprenfftarai for craj ^Ntct. 11. A 8 L - -g - ;. h16ii ^otet w^ifrrasT: *Kmw i W ^2T W* STf^TT f%%mg!T^Ffrf: H?^H ii17ii ^sipnfirarrwt *TTf^t mw. sjcn: i ^ /~> t crafT^T wstsi^ *§Tl*i«nd *3*gt^t: *r#f w*uft Wtarg?;: ^w. forcer i faOTjtf ^ ^srra iTfasfrBlr ^ ??rg ^ w ^ft i stf sfawg^^d %f%^ <reftc ii *sra: ^toft: ^rrTnt wWr $?: 3?ftfits^T irsr^fTt §?: 3f«ft I n qr ? ^r gaft srofantf *rft srai-Tftfftr. * ussr, 3 1 *r far f?n ^rfsrft jrsrrfTTOWi i ^r^^^^^^t^^H vft ^ra^n i g<*r: g g * «tt ^ ^cc^st: i 5 si ft ft RamsTOrroty shot qS ^tost: G ?rlrc£_T ssra: ?r«tft qr^gjcw. i $ ^n: *& st * «: H\w\ *fti to ^;ft nc^T^T^^r totww *tt topo^ i 5fa rann^nr: Sfrr: \ vw> sot trtTOsrosfsrem to: mmu ^nsn%: ^uftrm: i ft ^t st 3 * ^t t ?t ^ft i ^gs^refaft ^rsfHT- fN ^rrftr "T3 R^^r Ita3 ^ft ^^rr^m^ i " 7 st ^-[TOtfTafe- jt^" ^sifcsrft: i *r*iwfiSt f <rt: 8 ^nkt 3s ^ ii^b of ft ft xtstt^tto^w oth^^t^^i *r 3 «n fir an ^ft M«|2kfaarn 9 ^rg htst^ *iTfiran*r3*Tasftft *rg*iTfifan 5jto*pw: 1. A a A 3 omit. 2. A 1 JW%tJT«j°, 3. BBL read after this ^mw ^ w:m i fafcf *rtw w^{\ twftsfa frotsft fafcfT^ "WT^rt ?T«N ~" i ~[_ <w^/ in H). 4. HILoww't - ^ 5. H omi ts ajf^Rf %w«t:. 6. L*w~p?T. 7. A 1 A a omit up io ^aft^far: MS S. *t Trcnpwfl', (I°JRnT i H). • 8, B omits ^u % A*C ip&mK. # 3* tnfa%-fsrat ^^nfH^Tf^KT?!; siHtarq.1 ?wr^mfaft:— OT^^ra^W^^' fcu^ffti *r#*fai **^ tw wrd hot, rata^r* ^^iiHg^^, q^ ^t^ ^rrf^: ^=S 1 tt^ q*m#ft *fff^: i mv, mr— ^ 5rY sg ti fa *ffT *r # 1 ^ ^ pt^twtc- TTft^T: 1 *r # *r g tq^^sfirft ^r*n^fcr to* 1 *u f^ 3t w *r *: w. 1 w* *w lift* m^»v wA, 1 iiwint ^rftrr; htsr^' fa. w. i\c) ?.& 1 ^rc^mqt: uaffi mS irft^, w* =fffam: 1 sr^ ^ktsjt: sr3»T^ tOTwre: *r * n « ^ ^ q8 W 5TSP§r t'ST^T^f TRT: I 53T ft 1 ^ «3 ^T ^ 3 *ft I [t%]<ttaRswr*rT*{, [^] gturput ^gsksataT]^, fwir *farrer:", t ^r ^r ^rf ^ ft ft sri ftfa 1 ^ *ft irsiTwrc^w ^j?i 1. A a vwm. 2. HB omit wk after * 3. IHB ,^wt ^T^r^rt a^rrn ' inwrrct ^gHRsfta - A a ) gMg^nm i %m: ; IH. °^gqf«iig»»n ^m «fa, . - 4. A^fcmra . . ■.■•*•• , f^ ... , . rill „ ,...,„, rv. q k ^f cfTJgr^T sr5r*TT*T Ti^ft^T **Wr. STTFCT m^Tf T^gsCTSr ^R^ I tsd *wt m^rot ^ramt gsmtf 1%^% i cm zzmm—vm sj ^ * ^ft i wc: 3 at ^ 9rctfltft *fanc: w*irc sifaCf ^wrff *roft wftrft^ftctf 'jtararc— w0m *wft ^ft; i ^p^^^T^T^ift w^TiT^T^Ti;, wwi*^ 1. IHLB omit ^*^^s......*f?^TSi^fcr; A 1 omits ^*r *raaiwrra, etc. 6wt puis it a/ier f %^ HKF[. „ ,..:.: 2. A 1 omits *m, 3. HL omit si W'"^^U #-- r>. „ -. r^ - ♦. ^ WTm W*RR3pf tm- Pwaw'nfq ^ anranS: i ?rt st fern: q£<?*fcita * htf ^nf^Srwfi Wlf^fa qf^^Tri^T^^Tc[ <faifag* R ^m^, ^i^m g ^qftfw?r- 1. BH omit wtwci: fai^rr^rr^. 2. B fwTqsrmrfr.'ecfT and H faprcrcg^fo^T for fa*rasr:...f»r:«*iT. 3. A x O trwr^-w^ . 4. BMA. ^RWT°; IHL owii ^WTgf%^...WTf*r. 6. MBHL ffii qTMfa-fsreT-sm<§n **rcn i (B hts ' hw 1^3 *n^r *hot 1 *fc wra§* *r *m ^1 frq^ 11 ^far^T k* 11 wif: ) ^ t***. 1W ftrfcrt L ^ *^ ft'isrre arc fitftarat 'tfNrrat ^^fronir- qfkft m<nm w i *ftf^*r fafecn ^faww^ 11 *ft: 1 A 1 d/£er ^g^mr, qftrw W Wfa fasrirant 11 t? grof OTrotwsrT afrrawraawahrtita fafisra «re ww ^ 11 »f 11 ftwimgqtiftfqrq 1 OTrosrfarcwwe 11 ^ l^ G ^ 5 ^ ^ 11 =ft 11 ^t 11 *ft 11 I *fa faNiqf^TT ^TWT Ac. A a *ft firerar. trfw ¥flTHT I ^^0 *TC WQ'ft ^t r mx ^t^ft fim\ 11 $w$ 11 II8II IV. far^Tflf^rrai-^ftfn" (With the &iksa-prakasa) ft^T ^?ff* Hfrtstl^l^ — *r sr ft <gf ft f?n ^%«4crgsRT^ sprit ft:3?ram9qr«a*n«[ 3< w 1: i *ra: m^-i^^fa^TsMt ft^<$qrraffs$W3tara firan- wuft xT^fSm!% i rrrf^f ft^T **r# ajmqf ftm w^t ^fm trfronsi g*nt ^Tgfa^Tt ijtaisrrftfai tot ^r qr«*ts«. * <?rg<fsi" \ & i ?Tm ff 4 — ft^T *srer#sraf sgm*p ■•<*# 1. Be, tffrt:, " 2? L siTO for °*tt*t. 3 MBS. *fa *, 4. Be.o^ifs%, ^t*! mi 3T3w*n^ i ^ert: «t^t < ?fa: ^mt ^^rm st ttot- VFgm 1 cWTOHS 1 ¥ sCTippsiT qsmV* TS*IT^ W^- _2. —StJJ _C- . ** *v # ■• r- . . .. . ^ „..„ , ., .„ ,, „ \ , . V% Vfe TO I ^CT^T^T fac3*^*| ^RTri; TOP| I 4|«n<l fflFOTrawT^J- * q rPim wwftWft Hfwftwnr ssftiafafai m wr **■ ^Tmf^TpiT Ufwiftirj I «WWS[ g ^8^ *rTM **ftfll 5|\Wl", (fa-*-£.) I "*f 3WR[# M (fa.*.* ) "3TS*sicf (fa.^U) 1. L°41W^. 2. Be. ftf^s^f^ . 3. LBe. fswpssuw. ' ; 4. Be. q&s. 5. L ^r t^r for sj^r ^ ^. 6. L ^ ?r ^; 7, L a «p4. 8. Be, ?^sg«r,TjTR; for^g^^e^TR:. % flrofOTrgrafOT? wf: ^wwt tot: i nln vh&m mm n^ 'wtw w: wm hbh ^ri?;nr ^Tsmre— *t ftf % fa fa i trcfaraftrfa; sftrfteic^ *ratira- frrenffl ?n*5m*«nfirsT*ira ^WN[ imfa ftr * fe ft fti irasfh; s*gfifcfa3rr qfeWh otwct Slum Afen: ^nsHrorcsireiw*.: WPRT. ^W^CT^T^CrC] 4 iWT TOT. N^U m^5a^^ i*rar*l ^fa ^*Tsfa\ *rat ^?r ffii 5 sref * <* * ft * <# Tpat^i?*??r. 7 c 'wn#3i^^%r. for. t.v**)" *? te t^ *i ^ ^ m ^^ ^ ^ ^nrfaaijfacn: *r%% i ^ 9 ?^tri?^ sac* fo] ?rcr q* n* ^te *te ft* ft^ ^ ** *tf ^^ ^nAta qfremr. i " u <a* **: w* ^ : ^ *** ^ ^ ! »*wii»Fifl« *ra fiwfii * w" (v *• *). *fa iTT ^ : ■ ***|* ftft*feftr ^ifwi ^ *ft Pro*:, ^f^ *tg*fc ft*ft 1. MSB. 'fttf. 2. L *yS*n*L 3. Be. m 4, MBS. °^. 5. Be. omits *rct *S*T *ftk 6. MS*S, ^:, 7, Be ft ffer. . 8-. L puts % ^, ^ after this. 9 A - Be„ ^ for t^ 4 1(X L^4 11. M'SS 4 *Wet-*fN*rc. 12. MBS, tot* • ^4 wfiHta-fiTO ?m ^tc$ ^rar %$&{ R*rt3 *Tm^;*W?i iwrc: A i ^s^m ^: ftnrr^sfaft «rm: tresj*:, 'nwttvjjwRglWNt «rra: mFTOr q^wwrr- q^ ^ni: $ i z g q: i ^ $pr: sr^qtsft wmi ^^^r^^sm^: i ?ogW''( Or. ^° ) *f?r m^f: i w ^%gmn tot *rrsi?: *fmr€ *wfc WOTsranr:, *r groartt w. $* ^f 5* i xftf 1 "mwnHWffimd ^^ eft W ^ag *r *Kf *&? Oft. fid, I "sRStTCfgffi *«? TO ^J- *wfid8*l *rc gWnjt: t ^Tten^. snsrfh *T&rstuwfq tfg?n^ 1 s^t sprt PnAs '^fsi*m; w faT.fir. *.*. *-<l) *fa 1 ^mft tfitosrrenn 1 a* *Wt*ifafWt fltaiN <ifs§?r: 1 "^r firfra *rat*r- *mwft *ftr ^r 1 ^noftr hot firorlHfor: fq^^*r" (;ft # faj r ? ) ^fa 1 I 10 ^TT qfastfsfitfa TOTO$q: q^Wljef^ . ^T^^i: TOW^Rm- *raiT^q: 1 <^]gfgfei^ ^^n^q: 1 to ( *r*[SF ? ) ?&& wFtv. ■ 1. L ^?mt. 2. MSS. ^f^c.-. 3. Be. ?rwf. 4. Be. °^f^r^. 5. "Be. omits arrom Wwer:. ' 6. L^rf?r.' 7. L"?j^. " 8. Be. isrjtf. 9. L adds aft?R;^ 10. This passage is very corrupt, 11, Be, ^fl^shl^Tf^. 12. Be. ^sq^ or ^^ht i ^HTt ffcpS* X3T X* ^rfq TOM I sot e%f?f fsrtNft ^rc 5f ci^ ^ imi faro ? H^iprar i *PEi:^ftfiT fi^ ? W«& ^5 «« M 'srg ^t* sfa 1 "Assure* for. ^-^) ^T**r ^ ^ftsjg^arc: 1 fiifire ^**m ^ffrftw 3renq?:sN; ft 1 ^r srr 3 ^ ^*ifa^ *tt l\ ^t qr§ ^hwrf^" (it. far r.8.8) 1 '^rwRwrew ^:*fenr*ropa?- *tfh srg^ft 1 froJtft qT^ 1 h ^ tot <b*is%*ito!t *ft *JT^Tfer mi "m^ft srert m'^fft ^t" (MO*ft ! *wnjri% *rat*: 1 SaiTR ^ 'M*; jtfTOf fawr. 8.8-.0 "**rf <sR?n*f' fa% u*.0 T&* g^Tfafjmift fa*^ ^^ fasmf^ fa*!T ^t*TT3ir*R*T* 4 3^^ 1. Be. ^juft. 2. L w°, Be. *fa°. 3. Be. <sm*TTC:. 4. Be/°R^^r%. 5. Lir:. 6. Be. sspral . 7. MSS,^Tis§... 8. MSB. tRf. 9. MSS B ?ra(59. 10. L ^ (z?)° 11. Be. f^^fFn;. w— *" ^ r-. . .. ^ cnwUi-TstraT mm ^fiT ^amif^ *Rt g^ fawn i ^jro i fir w ^^r f[ n w ^& i xgrXqt qrapwyroft 1 1 facr*^ i wa: asm: 1 *T3<s*KK±ft ^cTrtt: vm ^m\ q^R^ faqfe- ^^— ^tt $ fa 1 ^rfmt^: ^usSMt srcs^*Nft ^ s%$fa^nfifa: qraf (Wr ?)arc "<m t?rer istoto sratrr^ *fa Jrsft^ ^arr Pwiwfa "qtfta m^raraltai ^pro q? affircrtra €* ^«rrfa- fawT (wT^t.^.^^) ^^ ^» wr ^tfsriifa jrt^Ktc^ [TOW TOlfa I *tS«lfar*fer ?T$ fcsfa 11*11 TTT ^ ci fe ff{ 1 ^r ^T5^>=2RToSrr ^*fa '%%*! ^f^[ *F5* ^x, 1. L TOWt* 2. L VfTf^t. 3. Be. °ftt*°. ■ > ... . _____ **■ Hon cfpc crrwRR5T wt^r^r ^hmmwi iri 11611 ^fer ^Hr^ ^wt fwr»T. ^ptt weft \\t\\ ^Tcr: ^rr^rrf: wrm<{ vmim^Fm: 1 _________ ________ *•*■ 11811 ^# fNh ^rf ift ^T^T^t ftsPRT ^ 11 ?? h *\ <~- ^^ «______ <»» . *\^\ ..... ____________ ^wtwrt w ^pr5Fn2Rqg?n: 11^11 fwsqiF^ srretaT^ ?r sftw srtfqir wt "^i^^ff 'fa (tfT- $.* -<°) ^ ft 4 *f?r 11 *r *n*p,fHff ^fi£ ^sit (?) ^frreft: unfiia: ^^f^< im *Wt^ srro^ 1 "^f%rn^n^" (qM-w) ^srfaarai "srlf faam<?m^rT^^t fWS ^^.irorsref: uFWH^t I *r xrosr" tfai <tot ^ fl^snrc 1 '%*Tft qT3»^fadM<$iHlfH f^^sr-T 3 j$\fm\ 1 *rrr <Sfa faf%m %*rfa gift m^ft wg^rr *Rrfaf' (smr. * r U«.«*) ^fa 110 1. Be. omits ~- «fir. 2. MSS. after this c^ *t4. 'S, MSS. qrat. ^rit ^a"HTf% wkTgT; w; firearm i wj^' *re*r # f^n^ ^srarangjiw n^n ill On- ^rksf ?f fiwrftaT^ wot¥WTS[ mil ill In ^*Nran toot ^err ^g^rr: gp: i iil2aii ftnroi% g f : Slwt ^wtsfr *r: srat yk n?on w^* *qktf ^:^rr%t a 4 ftsrr^n^i irtffH *ref f^T* l^^fa^ i ^ wr^nr^sfl i ^<i<k^"if vm: wm& ^*tt: ^; \ ^sHNntfif ^r^nRc: *3mcg ^m\ wmi 1 g 51* f% ¥T ^% sfstft *RT*fc*ra $m: ' ( *m to shot faOTjiter: nsm w"$N. kt- m*) 1.- Be f *»iw«»f^RfE 2. Be. w^ .- _____ i** nl5bn ^ijlNifafHft ^wj^sr: wm§ i nl6an ^g^rc*g w^\ fas* it: s^tsrfqjKqi # w *fcrftp*T ^rrd" *ra TOfwraS i . H2bi tf g tot** *rit **fcft mfi «e, Ill3ll Q^tT^tR^t#fT cNM^rftferT*! ||^o|| IllSall ^^RTfT fNN ¥Rri[^JT5WTfiR: IR?II # ^TW^OTT % %ci" ^CW S|cl*[ | sT«it srr<3t ^St i sratq^qsrre *%: '^^^( vfys^ \ mi fafiiffir— 4 H ^RT ft 3fT K 9t ^WT?TT 3TOTO «^q, TOT . i^[«OS- wrorift'irft i ss w^g sfassrero: iis£.-*?m sj^^Tfafai wwhih ^mf fai?r <srcw ma 8 w?t fail: i 1. Be. viq. 2 - Be - L 5TTcrf^^f^>oT. 3. L ttftvff. 4. Lwfarc . 5. Be. L wnrcNrRwI^n^, 6 % Be. L u$. 7. L nippft. 8. L imcpr . 9. Be. f^s^t Wt. 10. Be, adds m\ffi cfTOTCfa ^ 3*TWTTt ftwro; Iil6b« ^rttOT w gqi^NffRwjeT: wsmi i ii17ii ^s*RTfw *rirr Trf^t mra: wcrr: i t^rr^r ^wi^f mt^h^ <^qn^: i *r crer qiS ^ftefe mmiftq f%feNicj irw f^^\^Tg5r^TT?i^;&i ^rg q^T^ir^H mWNMI<g *HI«H- ^rirtsgiTft^T *fin *r*^*ri ^z^sri ^^t^i !&%^ 2 roTtf^qf^r ftr^swf fa^fa ^ fit «rf fif ft I ^PR- ftW^ i uth* ^t *w*s *rawj wra w( ^rnl^frerPOT ^r «f«ra^ «]t^s w <w *farfag: qfiM -irfiji *€*? ^tft^ *iftrffi?fiii ^tf; mm to* v«# im ^T^ TOfe *H^ M^ll 1. Be. omits »iRig[q^n:— *Wfe \ Be-, fi^t mumfati M # sto" 5^t^ f^cj; g^rsj; ^?Tf*R ^ fte^cj i s 3 fa i q?w ^ w^g St m«rt *tar ^reft ^rq^nfa^ *tot ^nr^JT^Tf^ftfeT *ratiN iratffa arergft mit^T 13^ far ^ WIT "HT 3 -%$[ \ gclT fa^farlf WTO3J WTOTsfi irafrl I ±MH8md4f*mil^°ll (ht. *aa\) w* "fe^sT^" (qT. «•?•**) ^nf^T #K ?iw: hto 1. L trfMt. *r vi x ^[ 5T^: ^t first: i hwhto^ i ftsrf^^isrwq^irrrrej "'stIswt ^rt" (fa. y,.^) ^fira?*, "^TOff ^t *ff% #3T" (fa. tt,.8o)ftf?r W^TcJJI 1. L Be. °4 2. Be. omits sfa.. 3. L Be. ran3*Trfw?p£rf 5 r.« a 4. D reads also W( v^* ftfJT^ H§ iswftqfc 3amK*f^ ifarroit 'iy.ii V. sjspaipiftaT ( The Yajus Recension ) ufa^wfq n*$£i{ ^few<i*{ ^rffirfiT: i wafi *ter3 ^rTfor ^r tffarc wirarr ii^ii ii3h wr. *wrfi™ftr s wfo m^m nqi 1. B °^. 2. G *n£ft, L, nwfa 5. CL ttt: iratwarr: % ^ci w %*n. 6. CL *w,^i1*rv B 7. CL^ktf. 8, CDL « fr « imi 1 « k ii4h mfft^^r^f c} ^ TOnsroTfiRtq; \\t\\ w * eve » ... c^ ♦ _____ ||5ll cTR "cTToFnER'r WlTO ^T*Rn«pH{ II ? ° II 11611 ^rfor or^ ftat from: w*n m ?r. 11 nil ■v & wr* ^Mcr: ^rmTfj jrwrgR^rro: 1 h7h ^ ^fa?: mff%*tf cf ffitom ii^ii ^ wrnft *mfom: w. ftwr 1 n9ii faug^f ^ ^ero *nftr^it ^ crrg ^ 11? 311 *wwr ftaftra utot tn? iw ^1 ^TCWH rTTSai fir^ ^ *TO3[ 3JSW SJW. II {\\\ f SW^ ^Wrf ^nuj ^rcrarilf ^ *Tferr»f I s^r %*mit apr am ^Tsrfani^ii 1. Weber reads °^T*m^raf^pr. 2. ODL f era xnt ^Wtsfe. 3. CDL ^ ^pfirra _ 4. CDL ^. 1 ^m sQfmt ^ g^ ^ftr* ^ §te$^i 11811 *£t #£: a c* ffir *nmt fro »<Rft ii^h ill In ^^btt ^tstt <^n w^m: mm: irbii f^WT^ <j f : mm ^^ot 3; mju f^t i h 12im Q g "wim^^n ^t ^ ^^^ $r ^ irmi ii 1 4b n ^qw#ta wm ^ faiTij#MTf%% i nl6aii ^Tfj«K4d *ff&st f*Rrf ft: snsrtg; ^ iRqi 10 3?<to ^ ^nrmf ^ ftiff sot ^?r^i I. CDLsqift w-"^rof T^. 2. GDLsrftat. 3> A*rfq» 4. GL 3P5ctfjikiT. 5. A 3rqj<?i ; CDL. ?pisir <en? ^rpc?ft\» 6. Weber reads wnfNrrw^ ^ % ODL ^faTfNrnsfafsrt enft$f?l¥Ic!H. 7. CL ^WiifllfiW,. 8. AL 3«B[q2art, BW ^f°» OW ^n:, 9. CL^T^^rg. 10. CL ^rtiw =13. II. ABWfttrar^lt. 12. AW swiltft, CL wnft tm %. ww: ^st to: stun f^twrgj^Rcr: ir°h hIVii ^ig^rftrar ^ ^f^t 4 iot: w?rc \ t^n^T **Nrercnsr ^rt%^ *mwv 113 ?n nl8ii °4raratercf ftsn^ *farf^R| iro^ i 9 fa*KH3*§ft:^rn*s s*rt s ^w t^c^ 10 jr^rrr: €^t fear: i •1. OL °^: ^ei arc:, B *m*ve\: *nsr: ; AW •%*«prFW a 2. CL irat, B jwwt. («p^ sec. m) AW «mt. 3. CL =n£t,, 4. B ¥\m ; CL 5^ BT3T, AB W q ^ gsp^. 5. AW f^^terct. 6. B fcr^resr, t«rareT^. 7. ABW mfr. 8 OL ^fafw. 9. OL fasre^fag^. 10. OL wra*. 11. Weber reads wrew before,TO3°. , 12. CL ^g# =<r W wat. VI. ^c^T'itaT ( The & k Recension M nfwrfa wsj$*{ ^famc^r ^ftfir: i ra3 *gfi *nfo *ri Star: to^it i;u iilii wra mm wH ^mvtM w: ^t ctt: hbh Il2n §werif^ faiNfr <3MK\ £ cl t^f ^ 114,11 w ^TTelTF 51JT *l*i$U^I«( Wu ^W T3«RRT I u3ti *h: ^T?nffcT?nff^[ sr nr^ftf ^trcrj; n^h t5i mt m#rwf ^to *n*rai^ iri 1. Y.°^u .2. Iwt .3. Y ^. # 4, Y wsjM^ ^ f* . »-s »\ ♦ , f> , .. __ ,„ _ „. lion ^jtot *[*fm w twtt: w^tt ?aj en h^h u7ll *ft *rof^: mff%w if ftntai iu . « w _______ <r^ __________ ^~ ~~j~r~f ^ftctfsr — — ~ ~: i ftwijwi tout * »rfirafi^r. ubi ^^ptt ?n _4 fa^rcs ^^ 5sr^ sitc »w [8] V- . ^^ ___________ *N h12h ** n g waroan ^ <H qw&Jte^ $?,# i?ch ^nrraT g; ^^m ^r^^M^ i Hl3ll ^t^T^K^^T cWtf^IcWfrTil ||?e.|| tat *m M tart * frnfruii w 2 ^pcpnm w^ t^r fa§rt sfcw ^m*i \ iMtsfo fronts ciwm ^ 3 tTift *Vt« 11^ _______ c^\ ~~ *_.____ g .. oil wrgfwm^Twt ^rnjjsi: 'wrgr. i w 1. Oh. mwtf ^Tf^irNTC", Y ir-s-jr wncNfK 2, Y w^t ^r ^Tr?if "*. ■8. Y snftsfa ~f. 4. Y has after this ^q^pffa '3WT ^ fsrfl^t^Trf^^. 5. Y -j-wifi-:. 0. OL. w*F{ ^. 7. Y *«n *imt...?mfw ■*. 8. Y w ftsrrffal". 8 ^ qTf^fa-ftMT ?p3 g gptq^l ^^ ^ m^ir 2 *rcft Wp *Mt Aft frc^ ?raT ^ffe?fC(T^^: i §§ mwm (?) ^ ?*8 ms^n (?) g*rc nssii ^trfu ^ sfef faw PrafaRf iirfifrf **rta*i i mi g fasn^ 5 ^ s^S fai€t*Trt to ^t infant i nl6bn ^tiWCT ^^ftwifcraeT: 'wc. «r 4 m: i Star: wvi to: ffftffT f^r^Tg^Hcr: n?qi ill 7d ^sg*nfw f *nrr srrf^t wr: mm: i 1. °^pit L °5fT^Tt. 2. CL wt. 3, Weber reatfs ^vt?. 4. Weber read's fircsTff. 5. ^epw softer. 6. Ch °<^T*j»nr . 7. Y to;. 8. Y !f#. 9. Y g^f^. 3Pffam§wr 8$ 11I811 i'sr^wraTt fircn^ Htffim nwf 1 «ftfifBTTH TO* sjtfNtf ^ Wl 118*11 ff^TTcf; m^ ^sfatsr srereft^i n^W 118RH M TOra»( ^T^TfrT £*ftsf €faf n^fir^^rftCTsrf \ *5WmMW ^ftfT 3 ^?t ^ qffsifijSRT^TITg^T^sr 118^11 1roi g sfiftfrorf ^ft^q^fafeRrsj iibsii K^rri «ft4 it^ttt OTsrfrfafrr TOq?*rarr iin" 3 ^arg^m !$ *to*aftrr*[ 1184" Suit flfir fwnri g if^tef?t ii8*J ^ ?rer 4 qi3 ^*sfe qmr^fe' fiRftro^ii^i 1. Ch *t#h^°, Y. °g^t trrf^a. 2. Y ai^ct ^ 3. Weber reads vw. Gh & *. 4. Y nftfltftsfo.- $*$w w*m*i wpr air 2 *Tsra hw mft #ta sroit **ft *<t fiwnstf * mhn* i ^ ^t^[# a^rflT^ t%5i% sro^sns: ^reatsiRiwn imn *rawj (?) ^RTf^r fa^tf 58nf^wtfem i «^:*T*?fa: l?t a?r€t% wtetf mmi w. anwff ri^ ^Twtg^m fiwr i *iTOiN: *r*ra<s ^ ^fafa %f?r: iiy^ii ^ ttaT fro 3**t fawt: at^Tftfa: i **& <* %4 ot^P MHa Mift i*«i ^frT qifa*lfcfimT ««THT II 1. X ai"*'. 2. Y «CT5!ft 3. Y fawrfparfaW 4, Y r«w; w<?r.. 5. Y i^gst ^vi . Varna-Sutras of Candragomin ii # fisnTOfm *m: i & ii ^T^TO^rajifaJft ^rt sitot hii ^i^^t - ^ ^ftflTR II* II ^ ^zgrowi 11411 ~- ___________ ~T^^1^3IRT^ II? oil ^tft^q^Wt: 11 * tn' ^§W~~TTOIIW -f ^ -I -[ ||^8|| f5W* # ^itJT*!T*| 11.^11 f^OTT^ araWIT^ » xi II i Iwgtmtf faTORUJ II ^H Sfan ^^Twrter)T-T: 11? *n W^Cl 4TO9 MR * h ?r?r ^rr wr -5 t: ii^ii : ^OT*^fira^ Wait %cr«\w^c# - «w j. .. r- <?t ^ 84 t|TP»RT?r-TaraT $m*[ <3\irot ^roi ^ hwi Sfcft fag?Tc4 aftet: (Citato imn *ra ^r^if ** ft*. ira *fo fa*T fWr. tffi** ^fm^r«- w*nirer fWf *nfe 3*r ti^wt wsfa ii« o « *RIIl1Mt*«:i8<l fiwifipftfrf: H8^« fiwnfiwr. ira: H8^ii W^Rnr. i8V THE PANINIYA-S1KSA With Translation and Notes (Critical and ExegeticalJ THE PANINlYA SIKSA with Translation and Notes (Critical and Exegetical) [a i u-n || r l-k || e o-ti. || ai aw-c || ha ?/a va ra -t || Za-u || wa ma wa na wa-m || y/za b/ia-n || g 7?a #a dfta-s || /a ba ga ia da-s || /c/ia p/ia cfea f/ia £/m ca ta ta-v || fea pa-y || ^a sa sa-r || /ia-1.] Note 2. The Varna-samamnaya (or the so-called Siva-sutras) whether it was composed by Panini or any of his predecessors was in all likelihood an essential part of the P£. and consti- tuted its beginning, for pratyaharas like ac, yan, §ar, etc., have been used in that work. But there being no direct evidence about its assumed place in the PS. we have put it within square brackets. (For derailed discussion on its age and author- ship as well as other points, see Introduction, §§ 12-15). Note 2. The Pnj., Prk., Yaj. and Rk recensions begin with the three following couplets : Atha giksam pravaksyami Paniniyam matam yatha \ §astrdnupurvyam tad vidydd yathtfktam loka-vedayoh \\ (1) Prasiddharn api gabddrtham avijnatam abuddhibhih \ punar vyaktikarisyami vaca uccarane vidhim ii (2) Tri-sastti catuh-sastir vd varnah sambhavato matdJp \ Prakrte Samskrte cdpi svayam proktah Svayambhuva \\ (3) Tr. Now I shall give out the Siksa according to the views of Panini. In pursuance of the traditional lore, one should learn it with reference to the popular and the Vedic languages. Though words and their meaning are well known, yet these are not within the knowledge of persons intellectually deficient, (hence) I shall dwell once more on the rules regarding the pronun- ciation of words. That speech-sounds in Prakrit and Sanskrit are sixty-three or sixty-four, according to their origin, has been said by Brahman (Svayambhii) himself, [1-3 ] . 7. 50 THE PANINIYA SIKSA a. The expression Pdniniyam matarri yatha agrees with the following which occurs later on in all recensions (except the AP.) : gamkarah Samkarim pradad Ddksiputrdya dhimate. It appears that the compiler of the AP. did not know who the author of the PS. was. For, though in the introduc tion of his metrics (eh. 328 AP. ed. Ananduirama) he writes : chando vaksye mulajais taih Ping aid kt am yathdkramam he is quite silent about the source of the Siksa given by him. lb is nob so much likely that Panini like later authors would pub in his own name in his work, for in his Astadhyayi too he does nob mention himself. This igaorance of the compiler of the AP. along with the defecbive uature of fche bext of the PS. as given in his work probably goe* to show that at his time (c. 800 A.O.) bhe PS. was nob a frequently studied work. The Prabi&lkkya^ which are laber than PS. must have supplanted it to a considerable extent at that time. That the author of the AP. leaves out as many as six hemistichs out of eighteen couplets shows the damaged condition in which his material had already reached at the time of the compilation of the AP. 6. The expression tri-sastU catuh-wstiv va shows how the author of these spurious verses felt a difficulty over the meaning of the first two couplets of the PS. and could nob say for certain whether 63 or 61 letters were meant by Panini. Kautiliya ArbhaSastra (c. 300 B.O) knows only 63 letters (see ed. Jolly, II. 9.14). The AP. contains none of these couplets except the first half of the third in the following form : vaksye Mksam trisastih syur varna va catur-adhiMh. It is evident that the compiler of the AP.too felt a difficulty over first two couplets of the PS. It canuot be ascertained whether the authors of the other recensions have imitated the indecision of the A P. in this matter or independently had their own confusion. o. The expression Prakrte Satyskrte cdpi, scarcely older than the A P. (c. 800 A.C.), has sometimes been erroneously referred to as the earliest mention of the names of Sanskrit and Prakrib languages (e.g. Hari Narayan Apte, Wilson Philological Lectures of 1915, Poona, 1922, p. 5). Svara vim£atir eka§ ca sparMnam panca-vimsatih \ yddaya§ ca smrta hy astau catvaras ca yamah smrtah ll (4) Anusvaro visargai ca xa-</>au cdpi pardfrayau \ duhsprstat cSti vijneyo l-Mrah pluta eva ca ll (5) Tr. Vowels are twenty-one, stops twenty-five, the group beginning with ya (i.e. semivowels, sibilants and h) eight and yamas four; anusvara, visarga x and $ are dependent on others and the pluta 1 is duhsprsta. [4-5]. TBAtfSLATION AND NOTES St Note 3. The order in which the different groups "of speech- soiinds have been mentioned seems to be duelto exigency of metre. The twenty-one vowels according to the commentaries, the PafijikS and the PrakasSa are : a, a, a 8 ; *i, I, I„ ; u, u, Q 3 ; r, ?, h ; }, ; e, e 8 ; o, o ; ai, ai 3 ; au, au„ . The earliest enumeration of vowels has probably been injthe so-called Siva-siifcras. But there we have only nine vowels, long and pluta ones being altogether omitted. The omission has been discussed before (see Introduction, § 14). The Pratisakhyas are not in agreement with one another as regards the treatment of vowels. The following is a tabular statement of vowels recognized in the extant Pratisakhyas compared with the vowels of the PS. Table I. Vowels according to the PS. and the Pratisakhyas. PS. a a" a 3 i I 13 u u u u u u u u u u "3 "3 u 3 r r r r r t V r f f h h 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I Is Is e e e e e e 63 63 e 3 o o 03 03 03 ai ai ai ai ai ai ai 3 ai 3 ai 3 au au au au au au au 3 au 3 au 3 22 APr. 1 a a i i i i I I X I *3 h 13 RPr.2 a a a a a 3 83 13 TPr,3 16 VPr.* a a 23 BT5 a a h i I h u u «3 r f h 23 1 The APr. according to the commentary does not include the pluta vowels in the Varna-samamnaya, but admits their existence in the Atharva Veda (I. 105). It is possible that the pluta vowels arose late in the recitation of this Veda. 2 In his enumeration of vowels, Uva$a [e.g., on RPr. 1, 14) does not mention pluta ones, though the RPr. recognizes them (see I. 16 ; H. 32 etc.), In the RPr. 1 (also long J ?) does not enjoy the full status of a vowel. For it can stand neither at the beginning nor at the end (1.9,11). 3 The commentaries to the TPr. do not recognize pluta variety of r, J and diphthongB. 4 This enumeration is according to Uvata. For his view on RPr. vowels see Note 2 above. The first seven chapters of the VPr. are genuine. The last (VIII) chapter seems very much to be a late composition (see Weber, Ind. Stud. IV, p. 65). Hence by VPr. we shall understand the first seven chapters, and the chapter VIII will be designated by the name late VPr. or 1 VPr. 8 The view of the RT. as regards the number of vowels it recognizes has been gathered from its vrtti which might have been built on Audavraji's work (aee Introdact ion §40). The recognition of a long } by the RT. is curious. . PS. and other Pratisakhyas do not accept this. 9 9 1? ha & 13 52 THE P1NINIYA gIK§A The difference between - the PS. and the Pratisakhyas is due to their originally different character, for the former was a manual for helping the recitation of all the Vedas or it may have belonged to the one undivided Veda that existed at the very beginning (see Introduction, § IB), while the latter (the Prati- sakhyas) were treatises related to the peculiar mode of reciting or chanting one particular Veda, or its many recensions (tatra sarua- veda-sadharanl Hksa...Paninina prakaiita. pratioeda-§akham ca bhinna-rupa pratiSakhya-samjnita anyaireva munibhih pradarsita, Prasthana-bheda, Weber's Ind. Stud. I, p. 16). The fact that the PS. was accessory to the study of all the Vedas, required that it should be a treatise of general kind and in this respect differs from the Pratisakhyas which related to one kind only of the mantra- text in its different Sakhas. Hence we find the Atharva and Rk Pratisakhyas omitting from their treatment of vowels the pluta ones which probably arose late in the recitation of their respective mantra-texts. The TPr. includes pluta a, i and u in its treat- ment of vowels while the diphthongs (e, o, ai, du) as well as r and I have no pluta variety in it. Note 4. Yamas are said to be particular nasal sounds occurring before the nasal stops when plosives precede them. The enumeration of yamas as four in the commentaries appears to be a bit puzzling ; for, according to the definition of the Pratisakhyas and the Nar. S. the yamas become 20 or 21 in num- ber (see APr. I. 99 ; TPr. XXI. 12, XXII. 12 ; EPr. VI. 8). Uvata in his commentary of the RPr. has a defence for both the enumerations. He sums up his first discussion, with evarp, vimSatir yama bahv-rcanam bhavanti sva-rupatt catvara eva tad uttaratrayama-laksane vicarayisyamah (on I. 20) and in discussing the character of yama (on VI. 8) he says tasmad iha c spar$a yamdnananunasika' ity ucyamane vimiatitvat sthaninam adeSanam api yamanairi vwrigatitva-prasangah ; sa ma bhut. caturyam eva yamanam prathamah prathamarri dvitiya dvitiyam evam a paricamad apadyerann ity ucyate. The sum and substance of what Uva^a says seems to be that in pronunciation the yamas do TRANSLATION AND NOTES 53 not partake of the characteristics of their respective groups to any considerable extent, hence they are to be called the first yama the second yama and so on, making the yamas four in number. But the Bahv-rcas however thought otherwise and gave an ex- tremely logical interpretation to the definition of the Pratisakhya without caring for its practical aspect (Whitney has a difficulty over the nature and number of the yamas; see his comments on APr. I. 99, TPr. II, 51 ; XXI, 12 ; XXII, 12. A great deal of his difficulty is due to the peculiar nature of the TPr.). The late Vaj. Pr., i.e., its ch. VIII (29), has recognized four yamas only though curiously enough Uvata explains their number to be twenty. In the Kktantra also (ed. Burnell, p. 2) only four yamas have been recognized. (For more information about yamas see Siddheshwar Varma's 'Critical Studies', pp. 99ff.) Note 5. Anusvara. All the Pratisakhyas except the Rktantra have recognized one anusvara only. The Pafijika as well as the Prakasa recognizes a reading anusvarau according to which two anusvaras are available. In this matter the Panjika invokes the authority of Audavraji. But the recognition of two anus- varas seems very much to be a late development and did not find favour with the majority of early Vedic phoneticians (Saiksikas). It is possibly the author of the spurious verse tri-sasti§ catuh-sastir va, etc., that has first honoured the view of Audavraji in connexion with the PS. Note 6. Duhsprstah. The pluta I has been called the duk- sprstaov 'touched-with-difficulty.' This may be one of the reasons why some Pratisakhyas did not recognize ' this sound (see Table I). But the PS. being meant for all the Vedas had to notice this. It should be known that the commentator to the RT. recog- nizes this (see ibid). Weber was inclined to understand duhspr$ta as a nasikya (Ind. Stud. IV, p. 349). But his view seems to be untenable. The Panjika on the authority of Audavraji takes it in the sense of wat-sprsta (p. 11). For according to the latter, I partakes of the character of semivowels which are isat-sprsta according to PS. See also Uvata on jRPr, XUX 3. U THE PININlYA SIK$I Itma buddhya samarthy&rthan mano yunkte vivaksaya \ manah kaydgnim ahanti sa prerayati 'mdrutam II (6) Marutas turasi caran mandram janayati svaram | pratah savana-yogam tarn chando-gayatram afritam II (7) Kanthe madhyandina-yugam madhyamam traistubhdnugam \ taram tariiya-savanarn £irsanyaw jagatdnugam II (8) SSdirno murdhny ablrihato vaktram apadya marutah \ varum janayate tesam vibhagah pancadha smrtah || ({)) Svaratah kalatah sthdnat prayaindnupradanatali \ iti varna-vidah prahur nipunam tarn nibodhata II (10) Tr. Itma with buddhi perceives things and sets the mind to an intention of speaking; the mind (then) gives impetus to the fire within the body, and the latter drives the breath out [6]. The breath circulating within the lungs creates the soft (mandra) tone; this is connected with the morning offering (pratafy-savana) and rests in the Gayatrl (metre) [7] . (The same breath circulating) in the throat (produces) the middle (madhyama) tone and relates to the midday offering (madhyandina-savana) and follows the Tristubh (metre); and the shrill (tara) tone (which is produced by the breath circulating) in the roof of the mouth relates to the third (i.e., evening) offering (of the day) and follows the Jagati (metre) [8]. (The breath which is thus) sent upwards and is checked by the roof of the mouth attains to the mouth and produces speech- sounds (varnas), which have a fivefold classification — according to their pitch, quantity, place of articulation, the primary effort and the secondary effort. So said those who were versed in (pronouncing) speech-sounds. Learn this carefully [9-10]. TRANSLATION AND NOTES 55 Note 7. Pratah-savanayogarri. The Aitareya Brahmana has the following : atha mandram tapati tasmat mandraya vaca pratah-savane ^awisei (XIV. 6). Note 8. ^manyarri. This is a form allowed by Panini, in his grammar, for the Chandas only (frrsamjairiS chandasi, VI. 1. 60). By Chandas the grammarian surely meant the Vedic language 1 as opposed to the current language of his time. There is nothing peculiar in his use of the Vedic language in the Siksa which is a Vedanga (see also Notes 9 and 18 below). Note 9. So'dirnah. The peculiar sandhi observeable here sah + udlrnah) has been supported by Panini (so'ci lope cet padapiiranam. VI. 1. 134). According to the Ka&ka this sutra relates to the foot of a Rk (iha Rk-pada eva grhyate). Hence this also is an indication of the archaic language of the PS. (see also Notes 8 and '20). Note 9. Varnan, the speech-sounds (see Note 14 below). Note 10. Janayate. The use of Atmanepada in this verb as opposed to that of Parasmaipada in PS. 4 deserves to be noted. But the meaning in both the cases is almost similar. Note 11. Svamtali. The word svara in this place means pitch accents, such as udatta, anudatta and svarita. The translator of the Cbandogya Upanisad in the S. B. E. series once translated this word as 'syllable' (I. 4). This is indefensible. Note 12. Prayatna. This word means 'primary (pra *= forward) effort' (yatna). Patanjali, however does not seem to be willing to allow such an interpretation (on Panini, 1. 1, 9, ed. Kielhorn, Vol. I, pp. 61f.) But as he has objected to it from a different stand-point we can well have our interpretation. For in arti- culating speech-sounds, first of all we adjust the different parts of the mouth. This adjustment as opposed to setting the vocal chords to action (which hasibeen termed as anupradana) has been 1 For a searching enquiry into the meaning of Chandaa as used by Panini, see Br. Pan } Thieme's 'Panini and Veda', Allahabad, 1935, especially pp. 67#, 56 THE PININIYA SIKSI justly called prayatna. This prayatna is included in the asya- prayatna of the Astadhyayl (I. 1. 9), Isya in this work means 'the place of articulation (sthana) in the mouth' {asya). The use of asya instead of sthana has been meant for brevity {Ughava) : prolixity should always be guarded against in a sStra. The prayatna in asya-prayatna has been identified with the abhyantara- prayatna by Bha^toji-dlksita (on Panini I. 1. 9). According to him it is of four kinds : sprsta, isat-sprsta, samvrta and vivrta. As opposed to the abhyantara-prayatna, he has bahya-prayatna,which is another name for Panini's anupradana, which according to Patanjali consists of the following : vivara, samvara, s'vasa, nada, {ghosata, aghosata) 1 , alpa-pram and maha-prana (on P. I. 1. 9) Kaiyyata adds to this three more : udatta, anudatta and svarita, and Bhattoji follows the latter in this matter (S. Varma, op. cit., p. 9). The use of two different sets of derivatives of the root vr (such as samvrta, vivrta and samvara, vivara) in the classification of both kinds of efforts is not happy. Nevertheless it can be justified; for in the case of the abhyantara-prayatna, the root vr relates to space between the two parts of the mouth, which touch- ing or coming very close to each other, produce speech-sounds ; while in the case of the bahya-prayatna, it relates to the vocal passage where vocal chords are situated. The fact that Patanjali and his successors use abhyantara- and bahya-prayatna instead of simple prayatna and anupradana demands some notice. A change of practice in this matter probably points to the advance of phonetic studies which evidently took place during the time that elapsed between Panini and Patanjali. Some of the early Prati^akhyas such as the APr. andTPr. were written in this period (see Introduction, §24). 1. Ghosata and aghosata are simply synonymous to nada and hasa respectively. Later grammarians however have taken ghosata and aghosata as something other than hasa and nada. Evidently a marginal gloss crept into the Mahabhasya as early as Candragomin (c. 600 A. C.)i who in his Varria-Sutras has imitated this in using expressions like nad&nupradana ghosavantah. and [aj-ndddnupradana aghosavantah. The mistake involved in the superfluous use of terms has been detected neither by Candragomin or any of his successors like Kaiyyata or Bha$$oji-dIksita. TKANSLATION AND NOTES 57 Pratis\akhyas very rarely use the terms prayatna and anupradana. The APr. never uses prayatna, but anupradana is used in it once (I. 12). In the RPr. each of these terms occurs once (XIV. 10 ; XIII. 1). In the VPr. prayatna occurs once (I. 43) and anupradana never. TPr. coins a new word karana for prayatna (II. 32, 34, 45 ; XXIII. 6) and uses prayatna once (XVIC. 6, 7), but in the next occasion (XXIII. 2) uses for it the word karana-vinaya (adjustment of different articulating organs.) Other Pratisakhyas too use the term karana (e.g., APr. I. 18; VPr. I. 75; EPr. VI. 8). Whitney's translation of prayatna simply as 'effort' is vague. Weber's translation of the word as 'Mundbewegung' is however more accurate. Anupradana is twice used in the TPr. (II.* 8 ; XXIII. 2). The disuse into which prayatna gradually fell seems to have caused the substitu- tion of its radical sense 'first effort' by the more generalized sense 'effort' which without any adjective did not distinguish between the primary (abhyantara) and the secondary (bahya) efforts. As unambiguity and precision of terms is an essential condition in scientific, discussion, the post-Paninian phoneticians almost gave up the old terminology and had new terms like abhyantara- prayatna and bafo/a-prayatna for the simple prayatna and anupradana respectively. Note 13. Anupradana. The term as we have seen above is equivalent to 'after-effort' or 'secondary effort', which means stiffening or loosening of vocal chords. Whitney translates this as 'emission' (APr. I. 12 ; TPr. XXIII. 2) and Weber has rendered it by 'Ausstossung' (Ind. Stud. IV, p. 107). Dr. Siddheshwar Varma translates this as 'sound- material', or 'breath-voice material' [op. cit., pp. 3, 9); but such translations though "not altogether incorrect are not happy. Whitney, Weber and Varma all seem to have missed the etymological implication of the word. The author of the Siksa-praka^a however extends the meaning of anupradana which according to him includes nasality too (p. 29). This evident innovation seems to have justification from the separate mention of anunasikas in PS. 17b. (For other points regarding this word see above the Note 12 on prayatna). 8 58 THE PININIYA SIKSA Note 14. Iti varna-vidah prahuft. So said those who were versed in the lore of (pronouncing) the speech-sounds. This evidently shows that there were other masters of phonetics (Saiksikas) before Panini wrote his &ksa. This hemistich does not appear in the AP. It is possible like the P$. 14 it has been left out (see Note 28 below). Varna also means a 'written sign' representing a speech-sound (see Th. Goldstiicker, 'Pelnini : his place in Skt. literature', London, 1861, pp. 34fL). The theory of producing speech-sounds as given here recognizes three principal places of articulation : chest (uras), throat (Icantha) and the roof of the mouth (iiras). Patanjali too while explaining catvari §rhga, etc., interprets tridha baddhah as trisu sthanesu baddhah : urasi kanthe HrasUi. (ed. Kielhorn, Vol. I, p. 3) From the fivefold division of speech-sounds mentioned in the P& 7 we may well expect that each class of sounds will be discussed next one after another. But authors of the inflated versions such as Kk., Yaj., Pnj. and Prk. recensions without paying any heed to this fact have interspersed passages (treating five divisions) with couplets from different sources. Udatta§ cdnudatta& ca svaritat ca svams trayah | hrasvo dirghaJp pluta iti tolato niyama act II (11) Tr. There are three kinds of (pitch) accent : udatta, anudatta, and svarita. Among vowels short, long and pluta varieties are distinguished by their time (of articulation) [11]. Note 15. Aci. Ac meaning vowels is a pratyahara of Panini. The Yaj. recension reads P$. 8 as its 23rd couplet. Note 16. The Prk., Yaj. and Rk recensions read the follow- ing couplet as the 11th, the 14th and the 2th respectively : — Uddtte nisada-gandhamv anudatta rsabha-dhaivatau \ svarita-prabhava hy ete sadja-madhyama-pancamah II (12) h 12. Of the seven musical notes nimda and gandham can arise in the high pitch (udatta), rmbha and dhaivata in the. low pitch (anudatta), while TBANSLATION AND NOTES 59 sadja, madhyama and paficama have their source in the medium pitch (svarita) . This couplet occurs in the Nar. S. (I. 8. 8) and seems to be original to it ; for this work belonging to the Sama Veda has a direct concern with an elaborate theory of seven musical notes. Besides this the fact that the couplet has bean composed in the 5.rya metre while the passages common to all recensions are in the Anustubh seems to create a presumption in favour of its spurious character with reference to the PS. Its absence from the AP. as well as uncertain position in other versions probably strengthens this presumption. Hence this has not been included in the reconstructed text. Astau sthanani varnanam urah kanthah Hras tatha \ jihva-mulam ca danta§ ca nasikosthau ca talu ca II (13) Tr. The speech-sounds have eight places (of articulation) : chest, throat, roof of the mouth (lit. head), root of the tongue, teeth, nostril, lips and palate [13]. Note 17. The RPr. and TPr. do not recognize any pure dental sound and they place most of the dentals at the root of the teeth and according to the RPr. urasya (lit. from chest) sounds are existent only in the opinion of others (I. 18). The other Pratisakhyas admit danta-mula as an additional place of articula- tion (For details see the Table II) . Note 18. The Panjika does not comment on the two fol- lowing couplets. They seem to be irrelevant in the position they occur in the AP., Prk., Yaj. and Rk recensions. But they occur in the Nar. S. (II. 5. 4. 9), Yv. 8. (143-144) and Mand. S. (107-109) too. 0-hham& ca vivrttii ca §a-sa-sa repha eva ca I jihva-mulam upadhma ca gatir a?ta-vidhSsmanah \\ .1 4 II lady o-bhava-prasandhanam uMrddi-param padam \ svardntairi tadr$am vidyad yad anyad vyahtam usmanah n 1.5 II Tr. TTsmans (spirants) have eight ways (of development) :* change to o, hiatus, i, s, s, t, jihvamuliya and upadhmanlya [14], 60 THE PACINI?! SIKSl When a ' word ending in o (out of an usman) is followed by another word beginning with u, the former should be considered as ending in a vowel coming from an usman [15]. • a. These two couplets, though probably not belonging to the PS., seem to be very old. On the antiquity of the first (14), see B. Liebich, 'Zur Einfiihrungin die indische einheimische Sprachwissenschaft,' II. § 22. The second couplet is not quite intelligible. Weber is willing to read akar&di against ukdr&di of all MSS. (Ind. Stud. IV, p. 352). ^ b. The APr. according to' its commentator recognizes four usmans i, 8, s and h (I. 31). The VPr. (L 51). has also the same number. The TPr. adds x and <j> to these and has six (I. 9). The BPr. has recognized two more : h aad m, making altogether eight usmans (I. 10, 12). The reckoning of anusvara as an usman seems to be very strange. Hakamm pafwamair yuktam antafysthabhti ca samyutam I aurasyam iwm vijaniyal katithyam ahur asamyutam II (16) Tr. When combined with nasal stops (lit. fifth ones) and semivowels, h should be known (as arising) from the chest; while h not so combined is said to be from the throat [16]. Note 19. This couplet stands in a wrong place in the Yaj. recension, and the Pafijika has not commented on it. Besides this it is missing in some MSS, of the AP. Still we have considered it to be belonging to the original PS. on the following grounds : (i) Uras according to the PS. 9 is a place of articulation for some of the speech-sounds, (ii) Indigenous Pali grammarians too have recognized some sounds as aurasa (Pali, orasa sounds ; Mmayeff, Par. p. 2'; "Geiger, Pali Lit. und Spr., p. 41), (iii) This couplet PS. 10 occurs also in late Siksas such as the Loma^i S. (V.9), the Varnaratna-pradipika S. (26). and the Yv. g. (177). Considering the position of this couplet in these works it does not seem to be possible that it originally belonged to them. The RPr. (1. 18) and the ET (II. 3) too recognize urasya sounds. Note* 20. Antahsthabhis ca. Its feminine gender creates difficulty in construing this with 'varna' (masc.)or 'aksara' (neut.) TRANSLATION AND NOTES 6l in the instrumental plural [understood]. This difficulty was felt by some redactor who changed the expression to antafysthatt cdpi. But the genuine original reading might well have been *antahsthebhi§ ca, and the late redactor probably finding this Ohandasa form unexplainable by the grammar of the classical Skt., which he thought to have been the language of the P$., changed ifc to antahsbhabhis ca and brought it within the control of the ordinary grammar, though the new difficulty which arose escaped his notice. The redactor of antahsthaiS cdpi made it faultless and removed all trace of the assumed original. Kartthyav ahav i-cu-yasas talavya osthaja vu-pu \ syur murdhanya r-tu-ra-sa dantya l-tu-la-sah smrtah II (17) Jihvd-mule tu kuh prokto danbyosthyo vali smrto budhaih \ e-ai tu kantha-talavya o-au kanthosfhajau smrtau II (J?) Ardha-matra tu kanthyasya ekardukarayor bhaveb \ aikardukarayor matra tayor vivrta-samvrtam II (19) Tr. A and h are throat sounds ; i, cu (i.e., c, ch, j, jh and n) and i are palatals; u and pu (i.e., p, ph, b, bh and m) labials; r, tu (i.e., t, th, d, dh and n) and s cerebrals; and I, tu (i.e., t, th, d, dh and n) and s are dentals [17], Ku (i.e., k, kh, g, gh and n.) is uttered from the root of the tongue, and v is a denti-labial sound ; e and ai are throat- palatal, and o and au are throat-labial sounds [18] . The throat element of e and o is half a matra and of ai and au is (one) matra; these two latter (i.e., ai and au) are open-close sounds (i.e., their first half or the a-element is open and the second half or i- and u- element is close) [19] . Note 21. At the time of the Pratisakhyas the speech- sounds of the Old Indo-Aryan did not all retain the places of articulation which they had at the time of Panini. 62 THE PANINIYA SIKSA ft r© m e3 <CO •l-4 ice CD ce CD Xl ■+=» a 2 t> •i-i 02 a3 3 o CD CQ a o OQ o CD CD ■8 a o • l—l ■s r— ( CQ CD a c8 I— t 4ti a <p •?9 •a a .a •fl s a- § a- u.aS Pn43 2 ft . 43 *■ •'9 a « - ft - P<43 j9. .HO «*■- • '""■DO I * r "" • « 43 ^ .^>fl H-" 3 fl "^•h T3« .fiT ra * »43 13 b£K -^■5) bo* ♦a* • 43 44 M M.43 44 ""H 44 -Tl- .43 44 tJD tM)X 3, "«• • -~43 Ha. ^3" T3- . 43- * R'^O* ^43 •*•< ^7 •a •• « 43 43 g- a - m % u Ph P* EH 2 » - > rt 4343 • 43 «-r^ • • • t^ ®43 « •a to bo x 44 • ~& 44 Mi us. ~ 43* «• ■*=>• • .43 P* •H O *2 A . <D (D « <o Sg' III M 43 ^5 o j a a +j 43 o a p 8 ^-"^ g^ a i> j.-g (3-'r-.*a « ® § 10 43 43 •»S t) ■** f-J s« Soil's 2 r§43r4 <B 'a W: '43 S Pj "43 43 43 » & S a It) n, sr m o as m ._ , O J43 S-H-g a? * * w ,cq-« id a ftp S a «l* .s ts a g >> S * * rt ^ O 43 4V B3 „ ftJ_Sf^ ( *—*[*• ^> »^ no 43 ► SO a © COVh.43 ^ 2 <n< tj'M a as 5 5pga g a«o fl'243-g'O S3 S to 43 rf g £aj§glftg fl ft" 4 ^ 3 <P 3 .2-2 <D 43^ *.S "« g a) rS ** tj ta t» > m ■* a *a S a ® ® * « g a s .a « w ri 0> a to "" . , _/ H 43 _ co u tj TO ^5 S«-h3 TRANSLATION AND NOTES 63 For details of this variation see the Table II in which views of Pratisakhyas have been compared with that of the PS. Among these, typical is the case of r and r. According to the Pratisakhyas the first is velar, while they are not unanimous about r. But Panini considers r to be cerebral (Siddheshwar Varma, op. cit., pp. C-7). The fact that r and r cerebralize, according to Panini (VIII. 4.1) as well as the Pratisakhyas (tiPr. V. 11, 20; VPr. III. 85; TPr. XIII. 6-7), the dental sounds that follow them, shows that these sounds were originally cerebral, and Panini testifies to the original state rather than the Pratisakhyas which have r as a dental or an alveolar sound. Note 22. Gu. It indicates c, ch, j, jh and n. Appending u to the first sound of the groups (vargas) of stop consonants for indicating all the five members is a Pacinian device used in the Astadhyayi (anudit savarnasya cdpratyayah, I. 1. 69) 1 . Pu, tu, tu and ku have been similarly used. Note 23. Ardha-matra tu t etc. This couplet (PS. 13) has suffered very badly in transmission, and its second half does not occur in the AP, Uvata in his comments on the VPr. I. 73, has wrongly quoted its first half as ardhamatra tu kanthasya aik&raukarayor. It appears that the sandhyaksaras (diphthongs) e and o having lost their diphthongal character in later times 2 this couplet became unintelligible and gave rise to variants of perplexing nature. Weber's reading kanthasydikardukarayor spoils the metre, but his conjectural emendation (in translation) of aikardukarayor was a very happy suggestion and finds actual support from the Panjika (p. 18). His reading madhye e-ai for matrd tayor however cannot be accepted, for it has evidently arisen due to a misunderstanding. 1 It is on the basis of Pacini's use of pratyaharas that Dr. Paul Thieme makes the statement that "it is self-evident that the As^adhyiyl presupposes the Siva Sutras and the Siva Sutras presuppose the Astadhyayi " (op. cit., p. 109). The PS. can well be substituted for the 'Asfadhyayl' in this remark,. * See Note 1, in p. 04. 64 THE PANINIYA SIKSA All the sandhyaksaras 1 being long, consist of two matras (RPr. 1.16; VPr. 1. 57; TPr. I. 35; APr. I. 61). Hence from PS. 13 we bave the quantitative distribution of the two elements of e, o and ai, au as follows : in e ( < a + i ) a is -J matra 1 and i is 1-J matra ( <. ft + w) & >> a" >) >> u >> la" )} ,, ai ( < a + i) a ,, I 2 ,, ,, i ,, 1 ,, ,, an ( < a + u) a„l ,, ,, m ,, 1 ,, Note 24. The Kk recension reads the following couplet after PS. 12. This does not occur in the AP. and Yaj. recensions, and none of the two commentaries comment on it. Hence we have considered it to be spurious. Samvrtam matrikarn, jneyaifi, vivrtam tu dvimatrikam i ghosa vd sai/ivrtah sarve, aghosa vivrtah smrtdh n20n Tr. A Bamvrta (close) sound is one matra long, and a vivrta (ope) sound is two matras long ; voiced sounds are all samvrfca while breathed ones are vivrta [20] . This couplet like other spurious couplets discussed above must be a a borrowing from some unknown source. But the substance of the second half of the couplet occurs in the TPr. (samvrta-Ttanthe nadah hriyate, vivfte Svasafy XL. 4-6). 1 Wackernagel (I. § 32), does not admit that all e and o in OIA were originally sandbya- ksaras, f>., combination of two vowel Sounds. His objection is based on e and o not arising out of actual sandhi in OIA. But the Vedic phoneticians in using the term evidently recalled the Indo-Tranian diphthongal character of e and o such as appears in Av. vaeda (Skt. v6da) and At. xaothra. (Skt. lidtra), as well as e and o arising from a combination of a with and u respectively. 2 The VPr. (I. 76) only among all the Pratisakhyas expressly recognizes the fact that ai and au have one matra for a and one matra for i as well as «. From the direction as to the production of ai and au given in the APr. (I. 41) it appears that this latter work too agrees with the PS. But as regards the pronunciation of e and o the APr. expressly says that they have only .one place of articulation (I. 40) and hence we are to understand that at the time of this Pratis"akbya, e and o no longer retained the tn.ce of their diphthongal character which we see in the PS. 13. The VPr. is silent about the production of e and o. The RPr. in its attempt to describe their nature simply mystifies the issue (see XIII. 15-16) Hence it appears that the Pratisakhyas in question are later than the PS. TEANSLATION AND NOTES 65 Note 25. Next occurs the following couplet in the Bk and the Yajus recensions and it has been commented on in the Prakaia commentary. But as it app ears irrelevant in the present context and contains the term karai^a which as we have seen before is a term of later origin than Panini (see Note 12) we have considered this couplet to be spurious. Svaranam usmanarn cdiva vivrtam karanam smrtam i tebhyo'pi vivrtdv emu tabhyam aicau tathdiva ca II (21) Tr. Vowels and sibilants are open in enunciation ; e and o are more open than they, and ai and au are still more so [21]. Note 26. This couplet like other spurious ones must be a borrowing from some unknown source. The substance of the first half of the couplet is available in the APr. usmanarri vivrta?n ca, svaranam ca, I. 31. 32). But according to this Prati&akhya, e and o a-s well as a are the most open sounds (aikardukarayor vivrtatamam, (ato'pydkdrasya I. 34. 35) and not ai, au as in the present couplet. Annsvara-yamana-ni ca nasika sthanam ucyate \ upadhmaniya iisma ca jihm-mfdiya-nasikc \ ayogavaha vijneya aSmya-sthaJia-bhaginah || (22) Tr. Anusvara and yamas have the nose for their place (of articulation); upadhmaniya, usman {i.e., visarjaniya), jihvamullya as well as nasikyas {i.e. the anusvara and yamas) are ayogavahas and as such they share the place of articulation of sounds on which they are dependent [22]. Note 26a. The hemistich anus vdra-yamanaTri ca etc., does not occur in the Yaj. and the AP. recensions (see Introduction § 2). As anusvara and yamas have been mentioned earlier in the PS. (1-2) we have to consider this as belonging to the original text. Note 27. Anusvara. The 'anusvara-nasikyah' and 'anusvarah nasikyah' seem to have been synonymous and probably the original name for anusvara by which the TPr. (I. 34 ; II. 30 ; XVII. 1) understands only a nasal vowel. This meaning of the term was known to the author of Panjika too. For he says soaram anu bhavati ity anusvarah, 'as it arises after the vowel it is (called) the anusvara 5 (5). 66 THE PANINIYA SIKS1 The term anusvara-nasikya has sometimes been shortened also simply as nasikya or nasika. But this shortening seems to have created some misunderstanding. For example, in the APr. (I. 26) 1 and in the RPr. (I. 00) nasikya has been used to denote sounds pronounced directly from the nose {i.e. yamas and the anus vara) 2 as opposed to anunasikas (nasal stops) 8 which are pronounced in the mouth as well as in the nose (APr. I. 27 and P. I. 1. 8). But in spite of such an use of nasikya some interpolators and commentators of the Pratisakhyas have taken anusvara and nasikya 4 to be two different sounds (VPr. VIII s 25, 27, '29; Uvata on YPr. I. 74; Mahiseya on TPr. I. 18). But curiously enough in his commentary to the RPr. I. 20, Uvata has. explained nasikya as the term including yamas and the anusvara. as well as nasikya} Though the later writers on Vedic phonetics at times differed from him about the meaning of the term anusvara, Panini understood by this a nasalized vowel. For he explains the anusvara as a nasal sound (PS, 14) and gives directions as to how it should be correctly produced (PS, 15b-16a). The term 'nasika' which is used to denote a nasalized vowel in the Pratisakhya has also been used in the PS, (14b). Among the western philologists a controversy went on for some time about the correct pronunciation of anusvara; but 1 The APr. never uses the term anusvara. It is from the commentator that we learn that the nasikya is equivalent to yama and anusvara (see Whitney on APr. I. 26). 2 Similar is the view of PataQjali. On Panini I. 1. 8, he says atha mukha-grahanam, kirn, artham^ nasikd-vacano' nundsika ittyaty ucyamdne yam&nusvaranam eva prasajyeta. mukha-grahane punah kriyamdne na doso bhavati fed. Kielhom, Vol. I, p. 60). 3 The TPr. sometimes takes nasikya in the sense of yama alone (XXI, 12, 14). 4 The view that anunasika is equivalent to a nasalised vowel arose probably from a confusion of this word with a somewhat similarly sounded term anunasikya (= nasality) as used in the M'ahabhasy a, yatha trliyas tathd pancama...adliiko gunah (ed. Kielhorn, I, p 61, line 18, 29). Patafijali is clearly against such a view (see Note 2 above). Among the old authorities who seem at times to identify anunasika with a nasal vowel is APr. (I. 53). But the relevant sutra has probably been corrupt. TPr. once understands by anunasika nasal stops and anusvara (II. 30. See also III. 129 ; IV. 3, 9, 13, 51, 90; TPr. V. 26-28, 31 ; X. 11(?), XV. 1. 6 ;XXII. 14). 5 Weber considers I his chapter of the VPr. as a later addition (opp, cit., p. 65). 6 ke te ndsikyah'i ity asyam apeksdyam aha nasikya yamanusvarali (ed. Sama^rami, p. 80) B TRANSLATION AND NOTES 67 among thein all Whitney, in spite of the bewildering opinions of the Prati^akhyas or rather the commentaries of such works, could correctly guess the true pronunciation (on TPr. II. 30). Wackernagel however considered him to be mistaken 1 and Thumb 2 did not venture to give any opinion on the matter. Note 28. Upadhmamya tismd ca etc. This hemistich does not occur in the Rk and AP. recensions. Still, upadhmamya and visarga being mentioned in the PS, 2, s we can reasonably expect the treatment of their mode of articulation in the Siksa. Hence we have considered this hemistich as a genuine part of the PS (see Introduction, § 2b). One of the reasons why it came to be ignored in the "Ek recension is probably to be sought in tbe varying later uses of the term usman which in this coritext surely means visarga 1 or the final aspiration preceded by a vowel (-h). This term meaning visarga as well as final h occurs in the Bk Pr. (I. 22 ; II. 4). In the VPr. (I. 54), the APr. (I. 20), the Rktantra (16) as well as in some other part of the RPr. (I. 13) the term sosman has been used to indicate aspirated stops. It seems that by the earlier deary as visarga as well as aspirated stops, due to their almost similar nature, was included in the term usman. Panini, however, does not use this term because in his grammar, his pratyaharas evidently served the purpose. By this term the TPr. however means 6, s, s, h, X and (j> (I. 9), and curiously enough the KPr. also means by the term same sounds in I. 12; and in the Chapter "VIII (considered to be a late addition by Weber) of the VPr. we understand by the term s, s, s and h (sutra 22, ed. Weber). Note 29. Ayogavaha. This term has been variously ex- plained, and Weber felt a difficulty over its correct interpretation 1 Altindische Grammatik, Vol. I (§ 223), p. 257. In the opinion of Prof. Iaders the anusvara of the TPr. is anything but a nasal vowel (see Die Vyflsa-Oiksha, p. 51). 2 Handbuch des Sanskrit, § 54. 3 This couplet occurs in all tbe recensions of the PS, and must have formed a part of the original work. * Weber, Ind. Stud., IV, pp. 112, 325, also VIII, p. 212. .68 THE PANINIYA SIKSA (op. cit., p. 354). According to the Panjika it means (15) na vidyate yogah vamdntarena yesam te ayogavahah : Those sounds which do not combine with other sounds are ayogavahas. This definition does not convey any meaning to us. Uvata says akaradina varna-samanwaycna samhitah santah etc vahanty atmalabham prapnuvanty ayogavahah (on VPr. VIII. ^) : They are ayogavahas because they attain their selves when combined with sounds like a {i.e. vowels). Similar is the view of the commentator of the Pratijria Sutra on II. 1 (see Benares ed.). This explanation too does not satisfy us and seems to be rather fanciful. Patanjali who is earlier and more authoritative than ■ the writers mentioned above defines the term as yad ayukta vahanty anupadistaS ca iruyante (ed. Ilielhorn, Vol. I, p. 28) : ' Those sounds which are heard even though they have not been included in the Varna-samamnaya (or the so-called Siva-sutras) . ' Besides these there are other interpretations of the term by late authorities, but it will scarcely be of any use to discuss them. The explanation given by Patanjali can be followed without any scruple. Alabii-vina-nirghoso'danta-mulyah svardnugah \ anusvaras tu kartavyo nityam hroh $a-sa-sesu ca li (23) Tr. The anusvara after the vowels not pronounced at the root of the teeth, should be made sonorous like the sound of an alabu-vma, but when it stands before h, s, s and s this pronun- ciation is compulsory [23]. Note 30. All the recensions except the AP, contain the above couplet. The anusvara being a frequent sound in Vedas and the classical Skt. it appears very much likely that Panini gave attention to it. Besides this for interpreting dasasesu ca we must invoke the help of Paiiini's Paribhasa tasminn iti nirdiste purvasija (I. 1. 66). This also may be taken to show that this couplet belongs to the original PS. TRANSLATION AND NOTES 69 Note 31. From this passage we derive a hint about an alternative pronunciation which the anusvara had before stops. This alternative pronunciation has been provided for by Panini in his grammar (anusvdrasya yayi parasavamah, va padantasya. VIII. 4. 58, 59) 1 and it is equivalent to the pronunciation of what according to Prof. S. K. Chatter ji is a 'reduced ' nasal occurring also in the late Middle Indo-Aryan (op. cit., p. 360). Note 32. Nirghoso' danta-mfdya should be taken as nirghoso -{-adantamfdya. Note 33. The next couplet occurs in the Kk recension only. Anusvare vivrtyam tu virame cdksara-dvaye \ dvir osihau tu vigrhniyad yatrdukara-vakarayofy II (24) Tr. In the anusvara, hiatus, virama and double consonant the two lips should be separated as also in case of au and v [24] . Note 34. This couplet has been taken from the Lomasi S. (III. 7) where it is fully relevant. The reading atraukara in the Ek recension is evidently corrupt. Due to this corrupt reading Weber had a difficulty over tha passage (op. cit., p. 361). The following couplet occurs next in the Ek recension. IntheYaj. it is no. 20. The Prakaia comments on it though the Pailjika passes over it, and some versions of AP. does not know it. Vyaghri yatha haret putran damsprabhyam na ca pldayet \ bhita patana-bhedabhyam iadvad varnan prayojayet II (25) Tr. As the tigress carries her cubs between two (rows of) teeth taking care lest they should either be dropped or bitten, so should one pronounce the (Vedic) speech-sounds lest they should be dropped (i.e. elided) or differentiated [i.e. mis-pronounced) [25]. There is pun in the words "patana and bheda. The fact that the couplet mentions the dropping of varnas in the Vedic recitation shows that the upper limit to the date of the composition of the couplet is c. 200 B. G. when the 1 ' The anusvara followed by consonants other than i, §, s and li is changed to the savarija (homogeneous nasal sound) of the following sound ; the possible homogeneous sounds in the above case are h, ii, «, n and m. This rule is optional when the anusvara stands at the end of a word. 1 70 THE PANINIYA SIKSI tendency to drop intervocal stops as in the so-called Maharastrl or the late phase of Saurasenf, 1 was already beginning. This couplet occurs in the Yv. 8. (195) and the Mandiiki S. (43) too. We are nob sure whether it originally belonged to the Yv. S. or the Mand. S3., but it is sure that the couplet did not form a part of the PS. which may go back to a time earlier than 500 B. 0. (see Introduction, § 36). Note 35. The following couplet occurs next in the Ek recension and in the Yaj. recension it is no. 6. Of the two commentaries, only the Prakasa touches it. AP. omits it. Yatha Saurastrika nan takra" ity abhibhasate \ evam rang all prayoktavyah kheara' iva khedaya \\ (26) The couplet as it stands in the Ek and the Yaj. recension and in the Praka^a seems to be corrupt. The true reading may be that of the Nar. S. The Mand. S. and the Yv. S. gives the couplet in a developed form a The purport of the couplet in all the above different forms is that the rahga is the nasalization of a vowel. Note 36. Next occur the four following couplets in the Ek recension only. Ranga-varnan prayunjiran no graset purvam aksaram \ dirgha-svaram prayunjiyat paican ndsikyam acaret II (27) Tr. In pronouncing the ranga sound one should not swallow up the preceding sound ; the preceding vowel should be uttered long and then the nasal sound should be uttered [27]. This couplet occurs in different Siksas. It is difficult to say where the couplet originally stood, 3 but it is sure that it came in the PS. from another source. Hrdaye caikamutras tu ardha-matras tu murdhani \ nasikayam tathdrdham ca rangasyaiva dmmatratd II (28) 1 See the present writer's 'Maharastrl, a later phase of Saurasenx,' Journal of the Department of Letters, University of Calcutta, XXIII (1933). In the Nar. 9. (II. 4. 9) this couplet occurs with variants nary drain ity, rahgalj. prayoJctaoyo Naradasya matam yatha. In the Mand. S. (112) it occurs with the variants : nan araitvrangdjj, prayoktavyah naMra-parivivarjita. The Yv. S. (19CP however reads it almost like the Mund.. S. 3 This couplet occurs in a slight different form in the Y v . S. (189) and the Loma6i S. (I. 8). The Mand. S. 110 can also be compared with this. TRANSLATION AND NOTES 71 Hrdayad ntkate tisthan kamsyena samanusvaran \ mardavam ca dvi-matram ca ■jaghanva'd iti nidarsanam II (29) Tr. In the heart (i.e. chest) there should be one matra and half a matra in the roof of the mouth and another half in the nostril. These are two matras of a ranga sound [28] . l A ranga sound rising from (lit. existing in) the heart (i.e. chest) has a sound like that of the bellmetal (bronze), (and it has) softness and is two matras long. Its example is jaghanvct 2 [29] a ". Madhye tu kampayet kampam ubhau pargvau samo bhavet \ sarangam kampayet kampam rathheii nidarsanam II (30) Tr. The kampa should be made in the middle and its two sides should be made equal and the kampa should be accompanied by a ranga. Its example is rathiva [80]. Note 37. The meaning of the passage is not clear. This couplet appearing only in the Kk recension and not being relevant with couplets which are undisputedly genuine we have considered it spurious. This, like other spurious passages, occur probably in some text not yet brought to light. Note 38. Next occurs Uie following couplet which has not been commented on in the Panjika though other recensions include it. Evam varnah prayoktavya ndvyaktd na ca piditah \ samyag-varnaprayogena brahma-loke mahiyate || (31) Tr. The speech-sounds should be pronounced like this. On uttering them in the proper manner one attains elevation in the world of Brahman [31]. Note 38a. This couplet occurs in the Nar. S. (II. 8. 31) and also in the Mand. S. (44) and might have originally belonged to any of these works. It does not fit in with those stanzas of the PS. which occur in all recensions and are undoubtedly genuine. 1 With the above couplet mny be compared the Lomasl S. I. 7. This passage seems to be corrupt. 2 This couplet occurs in the Nar. S. (II. 4. 8) with some variatiorj. In the Mand- S. (113) too this occurs in a varying form. Whatever be the true reading of the couplet it ig sure the PS. in its original form did not contain it. 72 THE PXNttflZA SIKSI Note 39. la the Yaj. recension the above couplet is succeeded by the following one : Abhyas&rthe drutam vrbtim prayogdrlhe tu madhya?nam I s'isyanam upadegdrthe kuryad vrltim vilambitam II (31a) Tr. In memorizing the Vedas one should make his reading quick but in applying the same in rituals the recitation should be of medium speed, while at the time of instructing pupils, the Vedic passages should be recited slowly [31a], Note 39a. This couplet occurs in the Nar. S. (I. 6, 21) and Yv. S. (54) and in a slightly different form it occurs also in the Mand, iS. (3). It seems that the couplet occurred originally in the Nar. S. Note 40. The next six couplets occur in the Bk recension only. They are being taken up serially. GUI fighri Hrah-kampl tatha likhita-pathakah \ Anarthajno , lpa-kanthas' ca sad ete pathakddhamah II (32) Madhuryam aksara-vyaktih padacchedas tu susvarah \ dhairyatn laya-samartham ca sad ete pathahe gunah ii (33) Tr. Those who recite the Veda in a singsong manner, (too) quickly, with a nodding of the head, use a written text at the time of recitation do not know the meaning of passages read, and have a low voice, are six kinds of bad reciters. Sweetness, clearness, separation of words, right accent, patience and ability to observe time are six merits in a reciter [32-33]. Note 40a. These two couplets occur in the Yv. S. (198-199) and seem to have occurred there for the first time. Sankitmn bliitam udghustam avyaktam anunasikam \ haha-svaram Mrasigam tatha sthana-vivarjitam ii (84) Note 41. In the Nar. S. (I. 3. 11-12; this couplet together with another enumerates the fourteen faults oi the Vedic chant. A translation of the two couplets are given below. Shyness, fear, extreme loudness, indistinctness, undue nasalisation, repressed tone, undue cerebralization, non-observance of the placesof articulation (in general) and (proper) accent [34], and harshness, creating undue separation between word -3, uneven tone hastiness, want of due palatalisation : these are the fourteen faults in the Vedic chant. TRANSLATION AND NOTES 73 Note 41a. These two couplets occur also in the Yv. S. (26-28; but they relate there to faults of recitation (patha-closa) instead of the faulis in chant (giti-dom) of the Nar. g. But as the couplets in this latter work have been preceded by the expression bhavanti gH' tra ttokclh thoy are surely quoted there from some earlier work It is probable that the couplets in question occurred in the Yv. S. first. Upamfoi das tarn tvaritam nirastam vilambitam gadgaditam pragltam \ nispiditam grasta-paddksaram ca vaden na dmam na tu saminasyam il (35) Pmtah pathcn nihjam urah-sthitena svarena sardfila-rutdpamena \ madhyan-dinc hantha-gatena caiva cah-dhva-samhujita-sannibhena il (36) Tarain tu vidyat savane trtiyc iiro-gatani tac ca sada prayojyam \ maijura-liamsdnyabhria-smmnam tidyena nadena Hrah-sthiiena II (37) Tr, One should not recite a Vedic passage in under-tone, between one's teeth, quickly, haltingly, slowly, with a hoarse voice, in a sing-song manner, with repressed voice, omitting (occasionally) words and syllables and in a plaintive voice [35], In the morning (the Vedic student) should read (mantras) with a voice from the chest, which should be (as deep-toned) as the growl of a tiger. In the middav he should read it with voice from his throat, which should be like that of a oaktavaka. In the third savana (i.e. the evening offering) he should recite it in the highest pitch from the roof of his mouth and his voice should be like that of a peacock, goose or cuckoo [36-37 J. Note 41b. These couplets occur also in the Mand. g. (41-42) but we are not sure whether they originally belonged to this work. Aco'sprsta yaws tv Isan nema*spr$tah salah smrtah \ §esah sprsta hahh prokta nibodhdnupradamtah II (38) 10 74 THE PXNINIYA SIKSA Tr. The vowels are without touch, semi-vowels slightly touched, &, s and s are half -touched sounds, and the remaining consonants are touched (i.e. stops) [38]. Note 42. The" degree of touch in this connexion is with regard to the cavity of the mouth or rather the space between the two parts of the mouth which touch or approach each other before speech-sounds are produced. ffiamo' annnasika nahro nadino ha-jhasah smrtah \ isan-nada yan-yasa& ca svasinas tu kha-phddayah || (39) Isac-clwasams caw vidyad gor-dkamaiiat pracaksate \ Tr. N'am (i.e. n, n, m, n, and n) are produced through nose, and h except when it is combined with r ; and jhas (i.e., gh, jh, dh, dh, bh) are voiced, semivowels (y, r, 1, v) and jas (i.e., j, b, g, d, d) slightly voiced, the group beginning with kh and ph (i.e., kh, ch, th, th and ph) breathed, car (i.e., k, c, t, t, p) slightly breathed. This has been called the basis of speech [39-40a]. Note 43. The hemistich 39a seems to have created difficulty from very early times. The Panjika (19) explains the passage first with the reading namo and this seems to be the right reading. The second reading discussed in it could not have been original in spite of its quoting Saunaka's Ek-Pratisakhya. Note 44. In the Amoghanandim, S. 40, we have haMro rephasamyukto nadir bhavati nityasah : 'h combined with r is always as a voiced sound. The true nature of the nahro has not been marked by the author of the Panjika. He seems to have been misled by a wrong apprehension of the testimony of the Amoghanandim S. Note 45. The terms nadl, isannada, svasi, Isac-chasa stand for voiced aspirate, voiced nomaspirated, unvoiced aspirate, unvoiced non-aspirated respectively. The term Isan-nada TRANSLATION AND NOTES 75 practically mean having hasa as well as nada or ub hay dtmaka i.e., ivasa-naddtmaka. Hence in the EPr. (XIII. 2) we have terms like hasa, nada and Svasa-nada. The TPr. (II. 9) however uses §vasanada in case of ha-kara and seems to describe it as a sound midway between voiced and unvoiced (II. 6) and at the same time calls it voiced (I. 3 3). Note 46. The following couplet occurs in the Yaj. recension (33). The Rk recension gives only the first half of it. Daksiputrah Paninir yasenSdam mjdhrtam bhuvi ii (4=0) ratnabhiitam idam Sastrarii prihivyam samprakaHtam (40a) Tr. By Panini, the son of Daksl, who has promulgated in this world this science which is as it were a jewel, has also revealed it to the world (for the first time) [40-40a]. Note 46a. The PS. has been called the mul&gama in the Indian tradi- tion( S. Varma, op. cit, p. 5). This spurious verse which may be very old seems to follow this. There is scarcely any doubt about the importance attached to phonetics by the ancient Hindus. Patailjali too stresses the importance of the subject in the following terms: tebhyas taira sthana-ltamndnu- pradSnajnobhyo vaidiha 4abda upadiSyante (ed. Kielhorn, Vol. I, p. 5). ' Those who are acquainted with the places of articulation and manner of adjusting vocal organs accordingly were taught the Vedic text.' Note 47. The following nine couplets occur in the Bk recension only : Ghandah padau tu vedasija hastau kalpo'tha pathyate I jyotisam ayanam caksur niruktam srotram ucyate || (41) Siksa ghranam tu vedasya mukham vyakaranam smrtam \ iasrnat sangam adhltydiva brahmaloke mahlyate n (42) Tr. (First) Metrics which is the two legs (of the Veda) is read and then the Kalpa which is' its two hands. The Science of the Movement of luminaries (Astronomy) is its eyes, and the Nirukta is called its ears; the Siksa is the nose of the Veda, and Grammar is its mouth. It is for this reason that one studying the Veda with all its limbs {i.e. accessory studies) attains a high position in the realm of Brahman [41-42]. \ 76 THE PANINIYA SIKS1 Udattam aklujati vrso'ngulmam prade&ini-mula-nivista* murdlw \ upanta-madhijc svaritam dhrtas' ca kanisthikdyam anudattam eva \\ (43) Tr. The top of the thumb when held at the root of the index finger indicates the udatta tone, and held at the middle of the ringfinger (upania or last but one) and at (the middle of) the little finger it indicates respec- tively svarita and anudatta [43] . Udattam prades'inim vidyat pjracayam madhyato'ngulim \ nihatam tu kanisthikyam svaritdpakanisthikam II (44) Tr. The index finger should be known as the udatta, the middle finger pracaya, the little finger as nihata and the ringfinger as svarita tone [44]. Note 47a. These two couplets have not been traced in any available Siksa. Antodaltam adyudattam udattam anudattam nica-svaritam | madhyddditam svaritam dvyuddttam tryuddttam iti nava-pada-s'ayyd II (45) Agnih somali pra vu viryam haviswm svar Brhaspatir Indra-Brhaspati \ Agnir ity antoddttam, soma ity adyudattam, prHy udattam, va ity anudattam, viryam nica-svaritam II (46) Havisam madhyddattam, svar iti svaritam, Brhaspatir iti dvyudattam, Indra-Brhaspati iti Injuddttam )l (47) ' Tr. There are nine kinds of accents in pad as : antodatta, adyodatta, udatta, anudatta, mca-svarita, madhyddatta, svarita, dyudafcta, tryudatta. Examples of these are Agnify, Somah, pra, vo, viryam, havisa, svafi, Brhaspatih, bidrd-Brhaspatih, (Agnih, Sumah, prd, vo, viryam, havisa, svar, Bfhaspdlih, I'nclrti'Bfhaspdtih) [45-47]. Note 47b. This passage with slight variation occurs in the Nar. S. (II. 7. fl. 6) and seems to be quite relevant there. It is almost certain that the Ek recension took it from there. TRANSLATION AND NOTES 7? Anudatto hrdi jneyo murdhny udatta iidahrtah \ svaritah karna-mullyah, sarvdsye pracayah smrtah \\ (48) Tr. Anudatta is to be known in the chest (Hi. heart), udatta at the rcot of the ear, and praoaya in the entire mouth. Note 47c. This passage has not been traced in any of the available Siksas. Perhaps it has been taken from some S. which has not yet come to light [48] . Gasas tu vadate matram dvi-matram tv eva vayasah \ Hkhi rauti tri-matravi tu nakulas tv ardha-matrakam II (49) Tr. The cam gives out one malra and the crow two matras, the peacock tlict e matras and the mungoose only half of a matra [49]. Note 4 r id. This passage occurs in the Loma6l 8. (VIII. 9), the KPr. (XIII. 20) ard with slight variation in the Yv. 8. (15-16) and in the Mand. 8. (138), but it seems to have occurred first in some of these Siksas and not in the PS. Note 48. The following two couplets occur in the AP., Ilk and Yaj. recensions, and the Prakaia comments on them. Kuttrthad agatam dagdham apavarnam ca bhaksitam \ na tasya parimokso'sti papaher iva kilvisat II (50) Sutirthad agatam vyaktam svdmn'ayyam suvyavasthitam \ susvarena suvaktrena jirayiikiam brahma rajatc II (51) Tr. In the repetition of that which has come from a bad Scary a, that which is indistinct (lit. burnt), mispronounced, from the faulty text there is no deliverance from its demerit as from the snake-like sin [50], But in repeating with good accent and voice (lit. mouth) that which has come from a good acarya, and is distinct, from the good text and is well established, the Veda shines [51]. Note 48a. These two couplets occur in the Nar. S. (H, 8. 10, 11) and the Mand. S. (160, 159). It seems that they occurred for the first time in the Nar. 8. Note 49. In the Yaj. and AP. recensions the following couplets occur after the passages given above. Na karalo na lambdstho ndvyakto ndnundsikah \ gadgado baddhajihva& ca pray og an vaktum arhati II (51a), 78 THE PANINIYA glKSA Tr. One ought not to repeat mantras with teeth shown, lips unduly protruded and with indistinct, unduly nasalisod and half choked-up voice and immobile tongue [51a]. Note 49a. This couplet occurs in the NS. (II. 8. 12), the Mand. S. (156) and the Yv. S. (25). It seems to have occurred originally in any of these. Note 50. The following couplet occurs in the Bk recension and the Pnj comments on it. Though the PrakaiSa quotes ib we are not sure whether the author reads it in the text of the Siksa. (For further notes on this point see below.) Mantro hinah svarato varnato va mithya prayukto na tarn artham aha \ sa vag-vajro yajamanam hinasti yathendrasatruh svarato 'paradhat \\ (52) Tr. A mantra uttered either with a defective accent or pronunciation is badly done and it does not carry the proper sense. .And it is like a thunderbolt of speech and kills the yajamana just as ' Indras*atruh ' did on account of its wrong accent [52] . Note 50a. This couplet occurs in the Nar. S. (I. 1. 5) and the Amoghanandini S. (122). Besides this the couplet occurs in the Mahabhasya with a variant dustah sabdah for mantro hinah (ed. Kielhorn, Vol. I, p. 2). Note 51. The following couplet occurs nexb and in the Ek recension only. Avaksaram anayusyam vismram vyadhi-piditam \ aksata(ra?yiastra"ruj>ena vajram{?) patati mastake \\ (53) Tr. (When a mantra is) deficient in a syllable it tends to diminish life, and (when it is) lacking in proper accent it makes the reciter troubled with illness, and the syllable (wrongly treated) will strike one at the head as a thunderbolt [53]. Note 51a. This corrupt couplet has not been traced anywhere. It may be a late composition in imitation of the preceding couplet. Note 52. The two following couplets occur next in the Ek recension and there only. Hasta-hmam yo'dhite svara-vama-vivarjitam \ fig-Yajufy-SamabMr dagdho viyonim adhigacchati n (54) TRANSLATION AND NOTES 79 Hastena vedam yo'dhite svara-varndrtha-samyutdm | Rg-Yajuh-Samabhih puto brahma-loke mahiyate || (55) Tr. If anybody reads (the Yeda) without a show of hands and does not observe proper accents and places of articulation Rk, Yajus and Saman burn him and (on death) he attains rebirth as an inferior animal [54]. And a person who reads the Veda with a show of hands, observes proper accent and places of articulation and knows the meaning of what he reads is purified by the Rk, Yajus and the Saman and is placed high in the realm of Brahman [55]. Note 52a. These two couplets with slight variation occur in the Yv. 13. (40. 44) and the Mand. S. (31-32, 33-34). It is possible that the Rk recension has adapted them from any of these. Note 53. The two following couplets occur in the Yaj. and the Rk recensions and have been commented on by the Panjika and the Praka^a : Samkarah Umkarlrn pradad Daksl-putraya dhimate I vanmayebhyah samahrtya devim vacam Hi sthitih il (56) Ycndksara-samamnayam adhigamya MaheSvarat \ kfksmm vyakaranam proktam tasmai Paninaye namaJi II (57) Tr. Drawing the divine words from the entire domain of speech (vahrnai/a) Sankara gave this, his science (Sankarim) to the wise son of Daksl. This is its basis [56]. Homage to that Panini who having received the traditional lore of speech-sounds (Varna-samarnnaya) from Siva has told us the entire grammar [57]. Note 63a. These two couplets do not occur in the AP. rec. and 57 is wanting in the Prk. As to the authorship of the so-called Sivasiitras, which is clearly mentioned in them, there is a great divergence of opinion. But it is possible that even if Panini was not their author he was at least responsible for their present form (for details see Introduction, § § 12-15). Note 54. The two following couplets occur in the Rk recension only : Yena dhauta girah pumsam vimalaih sabda-varibhih \ tamai cdjmnajam bhinnam tasmai Paninaye namahmW (58) Ajnandndhasya lokasya jmnmjana-s'alakaya | caksur unmilitam yena tasmai Paninaye namah II (59) 80 THE PININIYA SIKS1 Tr. Homage to that Panini who has washed off the human speech with pure water of words and has pierced through the gloom of ignorance [58] . Homage to Panini who has opened with the collyrium pencil of knowledge the eyes of people blind with ignorance [59] . Note 54a. These two couplets, have not beea traced in any available Siksa, but the second one seems very much to be an adaptation of the opening sloka of a not very old tract called the Guru-gifcu, In the latter work we have Brl-gurave for Pdninayc. Note 55. The next couplet occurs in the Yaj. and the Ilk recensions and both the commentaries have touched it. But AP. does not contain it. Tnnayana-mu kha-ni7isrtam imam ya ilia pathet prayatah sada dvijah \ sci bhavcili pahi-putra-kirtiman sukham atulam ca samaimite divi diviti || (60) Tr. Those among the twice-born who always devoutly read this (work) which has come out of the mouth of Siva {lit. three-eyed one) obtains cattle, progeny, fame and will attain happiness in heaven [60] . Note 56. This couplet again ascribes the whole work to Siva, though from some of the spurious couplets we have, already learnt this. But the fact that this work goes in the name of Panini and not in that of Siva — in which case it would have had a name like the Saiva or Siva Siksa, seems to give strong grounds for considering this story as an apocryphal one. INDEX 1. Phonetic Terms * Numbers preceded by 'a' refer to Notes and the others refer to number of couplet* translated (pp. 49-80). abhyantara-prayatna, nl2 adyudafcfca, 45, 46 aghosata, nl2, 20 aksara, 27, 53 alpapraoa, nl2 antahsfcha, 16, n20 antodatfca, 45, 46 unudatta, nl2, 11, 12, 43, 45, 46, 48 anunaaika, n27, #9 anuuasika, 5ta anupradaua, 10, nl2, nl3, nl4, 38 airasvara, 5, nfi, 22, n26, n27, 23, n30, n31, 24 ardharaatra, 19, n23, 28, 49 asarpyvita, 16 asprsta, 38 asya, nl2 asya-prayataa, nl2 auraRya, 16, nl9 bahya-prayatna, nl2 danta, 13 dantamula, nl7 dantanmlya, 28 dantya, 17 dantyaustha, 18 " dlrgha, 27 duliaprsta, 5, n6 dvimatrata, 28, 29, 49 dyudatta. 45, 47 ghosa, 20 ghosata, nl2 hrasva, 11 Tsacehvasa, 40, n45 Tsannada, 39, n45 isatsprsta, n6, nl2 jihvatnula, 13, 18 kala, 10 kampa, 30 kantha, nl4, 13 kanthatalavya, 18 kanthya, 17, 18 kanthosthaja, 18 karana, jq12, 21 karanavinaya, nl2 JDadhyama, 7 madhyodatta, 45, 47 mahaprana, n!2 matra, 19, 28, 49 mandra, 7 murdhan, 9 miirdhanya, 17 nada, n 12 nadin, 39, n45 nasika, 22, n27 nasika, 13, 22, 28 nasikya, n6, n27, 27 nemasprs^a, 38 nlcasvarita, 45, 46 nihata(svara), 44 nirghosa, 23 osjiha, 13, 24 pluta, 5 pracaya, 44, 48 prayatna, 10, nl2 ranga, 26, 28 rafigavarna, 27 repha, 14 saipvara, nl2 samyrta, nl2, 20 sandhyaksara, n23 &ksa, 42 &as, n 14, 13 sosman, n28 sparsa, 4 sprsta, 38 sthana, 10, nl2 svara (pitch), 10, nil, 52, 54, 55 syara (vowel), 4, 21, 27 gvasa, nl2 svarita, nl2, 11, 12, 43, 44, 45, 47, svasin, 39, n45 talavya, 16 . talu, 13 fcara, 7 trimatra, 49 tryudatta, 45, 47 uccarana, 2 • • - upadbma, 14 8'2 THE PANINIYA glKSA upadhraaniya, 22 udatta, nl2, 11, 12, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48 uras, nlO, 13, nl7 usmar.,14, 15,21, 22, n28 vakfcra, 9 vanja, 3, 9, n9, 10, 13, 31, 52, 54, 55 visarga, 5, n28 vivara, nl2 vivrta, nl2, 20 vivrtti(ti), 14, 24 vriti, 31a yama, 4, n4, 22, n27 yukta, 16 2. General Agniparana, xi-xiii, xvii, xliv, xlix, 50 Aitareya Brahmaija, lx, 55 Anioghanandini Siksi, 74 Anantabhatta, xxxiii Spastamba-Dharmasufcras, xxii, xxiii Apte, Harinarayan, 50 Artha^astra, 50 AstadhyayT, xliii, xlvi, xlviii, xlix, 1, lx, "'50,56,62 Atharvaveda (Paippalada), xxv, xxvi Atharva-veda pratii&kbya (APr.), xxxiii, xxxviii, 51, 52, 56, 57, etc. Audavraji, xiii, lviii, lx, lxi, 53. Bahvrcas, 53 Belvalkar, S.K., xlviii, Hi Bhagavad-Gita, xvii, lx Bhattojidiksita, 56 Bhaijdarkar, E.G., xliv Bhartrhari, xliv Bhasa, xlvii Bloomfield, M. xxxviii Brb.adaran.yaka Upanisad, lvi Bjhaddevata, xliv, lvii Buddha, Hi Burnell, xxxvii, xxxviii Candragomin, xlvii, xlviii Chandahsutras, xv Cbandogya Upanisad, lx, 55 Gbarpentier, J., xxin Chatter]!, K.C. xxvii Chatter ji, S. K, xix, xx, xxvi, xlv, li, 69. Dasgupta, S. N., liii Dayananda, SvamI, xlvi, xlviii Deussen, P., liii Durgacarya, lx, xxxiii, xliv_ Dhatupatha (Paniniyal, xliii Edgerton, xxxviii Faddegon, B., xxvii, xxix Gautama Dharmasutras, xxii Gautama school of the Samaveda, xxxviii Geiger, W„ 60 Gbosb, B., xxiii, xxxvh Gbosb, M., xl Gobbila Grbyasutra, xxxiv Goldstiicker, Th., xvii, xxx, li, 58 Q. au taraT Sil-sa, lxi Halayudha, xv Hiranyakesi sutra, xxxi Hopkins, xxxvi Iyer, Sabrabmaniya, xxix Jaimini, xliii Kaiyyata, 56 Kasiki, 55 • Katyayana, xxvii, xxxiii, xlvi, lii Kautilya, xlvii, 50 Keith, A.B., xix, xxxvi, li, lii, liii Laksmariasena, xv LomasI Siksa, xxxviii, 60, 71, 77 Liebich, B., ix, xxvi, If, lii Liiders,H., xxv Macdonell, lii ^ Madhava, xxxiii Madbusudana SarasvatI (see Sarasvati) Mahabharata, xvii Mahadeva, xxxi Mahiseya, 66 Mandukl Sikea, 59, 70, 77, 78, 79 Manusarphita, lx Max Miiller, ix, xxiii, xxv, xxxn, xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxviii, xliii Narada, xxxviii . Naradlyasiksa, xxxviii, Ux, lx, lxi, 52, 59, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, 78 Narayaaa, xxxiv, Nirukta, xvii, xxxiii, xliv, 75 Oldenberg, xx, xxii Panini, ix, x, xxv, xxviii, xxx, xliii, xliv, xlix, !i jf, lvi. lvii, lx, lxi ParaSari Sik§5, ix, xliv Paraskara, lii Patafijali, xx, xxvi, xxvii, xxvm, xxxvii, xxxviii, xxxix, xlvii, xlviii, lx, lxi, 55, 56,58,66,68,75 Prasthanabheda, ix, xv, xxxvii, xliv, li, 553 Pratijnasutra,68 PratifSakhyas, 50 Pingala, xv, xl.li^.lvi, lvii ]f urva mlmamsa, xliii Raghavacarya, xii INDEX Rgveda, xxi, xxxvii Rgvedapratis&khya (RPr.), xv, xxvi.xxx, xxxvi, xliii, xlvi, lv, lx, 51-53, 57, 59-60, 62, 64 Rktantra Vyakarana, xiii, xxxvii, xxxviii, * lviii, lix*, 51 53, CO, 62 Sahara, xliii Sadvirnsa Brahmana, xxii Sama&rami, S,, xxx Satnaveda, xxviii, 59 Sankar&carya, lvi Sarasvafci, Jfilnendra, xxxiii Sarasvati, Madhusudana, xy, xxvi, xxx, xxxvii, xliv, xlvii, xlix, ]i Sarup, LakshmaD, xvii, xxxii, xliv,_xlix_ Sastri, Suryakanta, xvii, xxx. xxxvii, xlix Saunaklya Cafcuradhyayika, xxxix Saunaka, xliii, lvii, Ixi^ Sayana, xxix, xxx, xlvii Sharma, Venkabaraoia, xxxiii Sbastri, Mangal Dav, xxix Shivadatta, Pandit xu, H Siddhantakanmudi, xii, xxxiii Siksapafijika xii fj, xvi, lv / Sikeapraklia xiii ff, xlix, lvi / Siksasamgraba, ix, xv Simon, xliv Sivasutras, xxvii Skold, H., xxviii, xxxix, hi gakranlti, xxxiii Taittiriya Pratii&khya (TPr.), xxxv, xlvi, etc., 51-53, 56, 57, 59,62-64 Tai&tiriya Upanisad, xxxviii Thieme! Paul, xxix, xxx, 1, liii, 55, 63 Thumb, xix, xlv, 67 Dvatja, xxxix, lx, 51, 52, 66, 68 Uriadi Sutras, lx Vaidya, 0., "V., ix, x, xlv "Vajasaneyi Pr&tifekhya (VPr.), xxxix, xlvi, 51, 53, 57.63-04 Vakyapadlya, xliv, xlviii "Vam&i Bi&hmaoa, lix Vai'ma, Siddheshwar, ix, x, xxvi, xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxviii, xxxix, xliv, xlviii, xlix, 1,53,50,57,63 y .., • **-» z * 60 ". : \- ■ :■ ■. . .!: :: \lviii V^r-'.'rr-*'::^. xlviii ■ : -. ; ■■ ■" : ■'■lashikhnsan, xxxi Vidyarthi, Visliwabandhu, xxxix "Vira, Raejhu, x, xlvi, xlvii Visnumitra, xv, lx Vy'a'sa, Krsnadvaipayana, xxxi Wackernagel, J-, xix, lvii, lviii, 64, 67 Weber, ix, xv, xxv, xxvi, xxxviii, xl, 52, 57, 63, 66, 69 Whitney, xxxv, xxxviii, lvii Wilsoni Philological lectures, 57, 64, 67 _ Winternitz, ix, xv, xvi, xix, xxii, xxiu, xxix, Hi, xxxiii, xxxviii, xxxix, xlm, xlix, li Yajaavalkya-Siksa, 59-60, 72, 73, 78 Yaska, x, xxxii, lx ADDENDA BT CORRIGENDA Page xii Line 23 for and read before 24 ,, ^ ,, the Yaj xvi 9 » re ,, re- 19 , , more than ,, nearly 22 5> omit twenty 26 , , eleven read ones 29 after the fullstop read : In his commentary to the PS. (Benares, Samvat 1990) Pandit Kaliprasad Misra thinks that Rk. 31, 37, 48, 54 and 55 are spurious (p. 27), while another recent editor Pandit Rudraprasad Sarma in his commentary to the same work (Chowkhamba, Benares, 1937) considers Rk. 28, 33, 34, 44, 54 and 55 to be spurious (see his comments on these). XX line 18 for was read , were JvA.Il 6 ,, followiug >s following xxiii 11 from the bottom for lie >j lies xxvi j footnote line 2 »> op. cit., pp. 18-19. i> ?? o »9 svara§o j\,J\.l.A. » , } 9 for (op. cit.) 9» (Panini and the Veda, p. 109). XXX „ ,,1 after Say ana >> (Introduction to the Rgveda-bhasya, ed. Peter Peterson p. 56). xxxiv line 2 » (op. cit., p. 12). xxxviii footnote last line '* 4. contra 2vA.-cxJ.Jv, line 16 for the Pr. 9) the TPr. ADDENDA BT COKRIGENDA m Add to the footnote 3 the following : and Liebich, Zur Einfiihrung, pp. 30 ff. and A.B. Keith, A Hist, of Skt. Lit., pp. xxv, xxvi. Page xlix line 12 after Pingala read : Mi£ra evidently under the influence of the commen- tary giksapraka^a ascribes the PS. to Piiigala (pp. 1 and 27). Tripathi too does the same (p. 30). Sarma however refutes the view and quotes Madhusudana Saras vati in his support (p. 23). Last line after the fulls top add : See also Mangal Dev Shastri, EPr., Vol. Ill, Appendix III (pp. 329-44). line 24 after the fullstop add : See Mangal Dev Shastri, EPr., Vol. Ill, p. 141. Add to the footnote 2 the following : It came to my notice afterwards that Bhattojldiksita ascribes the Eklantra-vyakarana to Audavraji. In his Sabdakaustubha he writes : cWT ^^c^^TM*^ W^fal- ijoefer sg^r ^fa (Chowkhamba ed., p. 113). Ivii lviii lxi line 3 read Piiigala' s Chandah- sutras. lxii-lxvi for Hemistiches read Hemistichs 9 line 9 for Hmw. ) > » 6 „ STTrTT ?j ^T?nr: 10 footnote 5 read 'omit' 11 line 14 i» ^T^r^n^ *rcit^t 12 „ 15 »j footnote 5 55 'omit* 13 , : , 5 55 'omit' and 'have' 15 line 16 55 mot ^ 17 footnote 7 } ) 'omits' 30 line 14 AH "1 O for ^mf J J 41 „ lo 9 ) ^(S11<*H 42 „ 12 A>. SPf%cf 86 PANINIYA SIKSa Page 53 Line 14 after pp. 99 ff. read See also Tripathi, p. 5 and Misra, pp. 28 ff. 65 last line after to PS. read : Tripathi suggests that dvih-sprstah and not duly sprstha is the correct reading and quotes the Varnaratna- pradipikii (15) to support this view (pp. 5 f.). Sarma contradicts him and considers the reading of the passage in the printed text (in the SS.) of the work to be defective (see p. 4). Misra refers to the above-mentioned passage and quotes another view which reckons weakly pronounced y and v as durhsprsta (p. 4). The RPr. (XIII. 3) however takes y, r, I and v as duhsprsta, but Dr. Man gal Dev Shastri translates duhsprsta-karana as imperfect contact (p. 95 of his ?Pr., Vol. III). 58 Aftar the Note 15 add the following : Udatta, anudatta and svarita arise from the peculiar conditions of the body called ayama, viSrambha and aksepa respectively. For the definition of these terms see Misra, p. 7. 59 line 20 read 'dantamula 1 Add to the Note 17 the following : Sarma considers the reading ndsikosthau to be wrong and corrects it to nasikausthau (p. 7). The grammatical objection raised by him against the accepted reading is valid but the laxity in this matter may be an original feature of the text which was written in the Chandasa style (vide Introduction, 26). line 4 from the bottom read 'uharddi param padam.' 60 „ 1 for (out of usman) is followed by read : due to sandhi {prasandhdna) is followed (in pausa) by. line 3 for coming read : but in other cases the final o is ,, 7 after second couplet insert : in its present form. ADDENDA ET COKRIGKENDA 87 Page 63 Line 12 after the fullstop read : See Misra on the couplet 18 (p. 10). line 6 from the bottom, after the foolstop add : Misra has very intelligently ascertained the correct reading (see p. 11, 11. 18-19) . Tripathl too has correctly taken ekaraikarayor as the correct reading but his interpretation of the passage is misleading (p. 11, 11. 1 ff.). 64 line 15 read vivrta (open). ,, 21 add after the fullstop the following : , Migra thinks that the samvrta sound mentioned in this couplet relates to half e and half o {i.e., short e and short o) and refers to Pataiijali's Mahabhasya (pp. 11 f.) line 6 in the footnote read i and u respectively. 65 „ 15 add See Taitt. Pr., II, 13, H ; E.L. Turner in Asutosh Mookerjee Silver Jubilee Volume, III, p. 337 ; Jules Bloch, 1/ lndo-Aryen, p. 33. Last line, add the following : As Sarma comments on the Rk. recension (p. 10) he feels a difficulty about the interpretation of the passage and invokes the authority of the Sabdaratna but such a difficulty does not arise when we read upadhmaniya, etc., between the two bemistichs of Rk. 22, 66 line 14 after 'nasikya' add : (see Mangal Dev Shastri, Rgveda Pratislkbya, Vol. HI, pp. 151-52, Notes on I. 41). line 4 from the bottom omit T Pr. ,,' 3 from the bottom, add the following : See also Mangal Dev Shastri, op. cit., pp. 143-44 (Notes on p. 20) 67 line 4 after the fullstop add : But in this matter Macdonell follows Whitney ; see 'A Vedic Grammar for Students,' §§ lOf . 29b, 39, 88 PANINIYA SIKSA Page 68 last line add the following : The Alabu-vma used in modern Indian music was probably invented after the G-upta period, but this should not bring down the date of the above passage. For AlFibu-vTna mentiond in this passage was in all likelihood a very primitive instrument like our modern ekatdra or one-stringed vlna quite different from its late development the modern vlna. Its very crudity speaks for its great age. 69 line 12 read 'dvir ostyau* and 'yathauharau.' ,, '20 for does „ do ,,21 „ 'dawstrabhya/ni' 70 2 after the full-stop add the following : From what Misra says we understand that patana (dropping) of letters means spirantizing them and bheda (or differentiating) is de-aspiration of them ferfitaT«S*Nt" (p. 15). - line 4 from the bottom read 'amity' and Wang ah 1 ,, 3 from the bottom ,, Mand. 71 ,,14: add the following : MSS. read samau bhavet But this is grammatically wrong. Hence we tentatively read samo. Mi&a explains this as an drsa usage (p. 17). line 6 from the bottom, add the following : Tripathl explains piditd as 'pronounced with more breath which lengthens short vowels' (p. 17). 72 line 19 read recitation, ,, 24: add the following : Tripathl explains 'likhita-pathahah as one reading " from a book written by oneself and alpakantha as 'one ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA 89 who has not practised recitation' (p. 18). So does Sarma (p. 14) and besides this he considers the couplet No. 33 to be spurious (loc. cit ). line 5 from the bottom read the place of. Page 74 line 2 for &, s and s read 6, s, s and h. ,, 12 Insert ; (semicolon) after nose and , (comma) after r. 74 line 8 from the bottom read the following : rephasamyukto' nadir, etc. line 7 from the bottom read always as an unvoiced sound. lines 6-4 omit 'He seems to have of the Amogha- nandini SikaaV 75 line 9 read Paninir yas ta^dam' 76 line 14, add the following : Sarma considers the couplet No. 44 to be spurious (p. 18). 77 line 5 ff cancel the Note 47c and read the following : This passage with a slight variation occurs in a late work named the Svarastaka S. by one Ananta (see SS., p. 365. Tripathi, p. 25). 78 line 6 for thePnj. read some MSS. of the Pnj. ,, 8 after the fullstop read : The original Pnj. probably did not contain this (see p. 22, line 6). 79 12, add the following : Misra considers couplets 54 and 55 to be spurious (p. 27) and so does Sarma (p, 21). 90 THE PININIYA glESl ADDITIONAL CORRIGENDA Page vi lines 1 and 3 for London read Lund xxii line 21 for 700 B.C. read 50C B.C. Hi ,,4 from the bottom, for concludes road suggests, „ last, read p. clxvii liii „ 13 insert as' if before sitting 55 lines 2 L-23 omit The translator of indefensible.