Studies in the Kasikavrtti. The Section on Pratyaharas
274 Pages
English
Gain access to the library to view online
Learn more

Studies in the Kasikavrtti. The Section on Pratyaharas

Gain access to the library to view online
Learn more
274 Pages
English

Description

Contains a critical edition, English translation and essays on the initial section of the Kasikavrtti, the oldest complete commentary on the Astadhyayi of Panini.


The volume is the first outcome of an international project aiming towards a complete critical edition of the Kasikavrtti (7th c. CE) of Jayaditya and Vamana, the oldest surviving complete commentary on the Astadhyayi of Panini (ca. 4th c. BCE). The first phase, culminating in the critical edition of the Kasika’s initial section devoted to the Pratyaharasutras, the ‘rules for abbreviations’, was jointly coordinated by the editors together with Professor Saroja Bhate (Pune), a Paninian scholar of global renown. The first part of the volume presents the critical edition of the Pratyaharasutra section by Bhate, Haag and Vergiani, along with a description of the manuscripts collated, an annotated English translation by the editors, and the editors’ contributions dealing with the history of the Kasikavrtti’s editions and the currently available textual sources, as well as the methodology and results of the first phase of the project. In the second part, various authors discuss theoretical, historical and methodological topics ranging from the historical importance of the Kasika and its relation with the seminal Mahabhasya of Patanjali, to a comparison with the corresponding section in the Candavrtti, the evidence of Bhartrhari’s influence on the Kasika, and the copyists’ invocations and the incipit attested in the Kasikavrtti manuscripts.


Acknowledgements; Abbreviations; Preface; I. INTRODUCTION; Introduction; Methodology and Research; Description of Manuscripts; II. CRITICAL EDITION AND TRANSLATION; Critical Edition; Translation: The Section on Abbreviations; Appendix to the Translation; III. ESSAYS; The Importance of the ‘Kasika’; The ‘Mahabhasya’ and the ‘Kasikavrtti’. A Case Study; ‘astadhyayyam prathamadhyayasthamahabhasyakasikavrttyoh ka cana samiksa’; A Quotation of the ‘Mahabhasyadipika’ of Bhartrhari in the ‘Pratyahara’ Section of the ‘Kasikavrtti’; ‘Kasikavrtti’ and ‘Candravyakarana’: A Comparison of the ‘Pratyaharasutra’ Section; Paratextual Elements in Indian Manuscripts: The Copyists’ Invocations and the Incipit of the ‘Kasikavrtti’; The Relationship Between the Manuscripts; Bibliography of the ‘Kasikavrtti’

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Published 15 December 2011
Reads 0
EAN13 9781843318927
Language English
Document size 2 MB

Legal information: rental price per page 0.0076€. This information is given for information only in accordance with current legislation.

Exrait

STUDIES IN THE KĀŚIKĀVṚTTI.
THE SECTION ON PRATYĀHĀRASCultural, Historical and Textual Studies of Religions
The volumes featured in the Anthem Cultural, Historical
and Textual Studies of Religions series are the expression of an
international community of scholars committed to the reshaping
of the fi eld of textual and historical studies of religions. Titles in this
series examine practice, ritual, and other textual religious products,
crossing different area studies and time frames. Featuring a vast
range of interpretive perspectives, this innovative series aims
to enhance the way we look at religious traditions.
Series Editor
Federico Squarcini, University of Firenze, Italy
Editorial Board
Piero Capelli, University of Venezia, Italy
Vincent Eltschinger, ICIHA, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria
Christoph Emmrich, University of Toronto, Canada
James Fitzgerald, Brown University, USA
Jonardon Ganeri, University of Sussex, UK
Barbara A. Holdrege, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Sheldon Pollock, Columbia University, USA
Karin Preisendanz, University of Vienna, Austria
Alessandro Saggioro, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Cristina Scherrer-Schaub, University of Lausanne and EPHE, France
Romila Thapar, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India
Ananya Vajpeyi, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA
Marco Ventura, University of Siena, Italy
Vincenzo Vergiani, University of Cambridge, UKSTUDIES IN THE KĀŚIKĀVṚTTI.
THE SECTION ON PRATYĀHĀRAS
CRITICAL EDITION, TRANSLATION
AND OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS
Edited by Pascale Haag and Vincenzo VergianiAnthem Press
An imprint of Wimbledon Publishing Company
www.anthempress.com
This edition fi rst published in UK and USA 2011
by ANTHEM PRESS
75-76 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8HA, UK
or PO Box 9779, London SW19 7ZG, UK
and
244 Madison Ave. #116, New York, NY 10016, USA
© 2011 Pascale Haag and Vincenzo Vergiani editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters © individual contributors
The moral right of the authors has been asserted.

Graphics and layout © Marianna Ferrara
Cover image ‘Bas-relief from the temple of Keshava in Somnathpur,
Karnataka, India, 2006’ © Paolo Giunta
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above,
no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means
(electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise),
without the prior written permission of both the copyright
owner and the above publisher of this book.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested.
ISBN-13: 978 0 85728 434 1 (Hbk)
ISBN-10: 0 85728 434 7 (Hbk)
This title is also available as an eBook.In memory of K. Venugopalann
i
a
n
i
c
r
t
c
a
l
d
t
o
g
n
g
a
a
h
n
d
l
a
t
s
a
r
a
a
n
i
a
o
j
a
b
h
a
t
a
s
a
l
h
a
n
a
i
i
n
a
i
g
r
n
n
o
z
n
z
g
o
o
i
n
z
o
r
g
i
a
n
i
a
s
a
l
n
h
a
g
i
n
n
z
o
r
g
i
a
n
i
a
r
g
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
t
n
l
a
i
t
o
n
a
r
o
j
a
b
h
a
t
a
s
a
l
h
a
r
a
Contents
Acknowledgements 9
Abbreviations 13
Preface 15
. I I

P C E
Introduction 21
V CE VE
Methodology and Results 31
s E, P C E , V CE VE
Description of Manuscripts 53
ii. I I E I I I
s E, P C E , V CE VE
Critical Edition 77
P C E , V CE VE
t ranslation: the Section on Abbreviations 101o
a
h
b
n
a
j
o
r
a
z
n
n
i
g
a
a
h
t
s
r
o
h
k
t
a
r
r
s
n
a
y
i
n
a
j
n
a
a
n
s
a
s
l
h
a
a
g
m
a
a
i
l
g
o
l
t
n
v
ā
z
o
ś
ā
i
m
r
h
t
g
n
i
i
s
a
i
d
u
t
t
i
b
a
l
s
a
n
n
a
h
o
s
s
y
r
n
s
a
t
n
a
s
s
u
a
i
i
s
8 s E E K IK Ṛ I
Appendix to the t ranslation 119
iii . E
j E
t he Importance of the Kāśikā 129
s E
:t he Mahābhāṣya and the Kāśikāvṛtti A Case Study 141
. .P. E
aṣṭādhyāyyāṃ
prathamādhyāyasthamahābhāṣyakāśikāvṛttyoḥ kā cana samīkṣā 153
V CE VE
A Quotation from the Mahābhāṣyadīpikā of Bhartṛhari
in the Pratyāhāra Section of the Kāśikāvṛtti 161
É E
Kāśikāvṛtti and Cāndravyākaraṇa: A Comparison of the
Pratyāhārasūtra Section 191
P C E
Paratextual Elements in Indian Manuscripts: t he Copyists’
Invocations and the Incipit of the Kāśikāvṛtti 215
V CE VE
t he Relationships between the Manuscripts 243
P C E
Bibliography on the Kāśikāvṛtti 2639
Acknowledgements
This volume is the outcome of a project that was frst
undertaken in the framework of a programme funded by the
French Centre national de la recherche
scientifque/Ministry of Education and Research (Action concertée incitative
“grammaire et mathématiques dans le monde indien”),
originally involving several institutions (École pratique des hautes
études, Paris; Facoltà di Studi Orientali, Università La
Sapienza, Rome; Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune). It
could not have been achieved without the fnancial support
of the Society for South-Asian Studies, London, the Centre
d’études de l’Inde et de l’Asie du Sud (UMR-8564 C.N.R.S/
E.H.E.S.S.), Paris, and the École française d’Extrême-Orient,
which allowed some of the European participants to travel
to India in order to collect manuscripts and work with their
Indian colleagues. Moreover, part of the funds granted by
Europaid (Co-operation Offce) of the E.U. in 2005-2006 for
the project “For an ITC Archeology of Ancient Indian Texts”
were allotted to the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
and the Facoltà di Studi Orientali, Università La Sapienza
(Rome) for their collaboration in the project of a critical
edition of the Kāśikāvṛtti. It is our pleasant duty to thank them all
for their generous support.
We are also grateful to the many friends and colleagues
who have provided us with their precious advice, their ā
t
u
d
i
t
s
ś
i
n
v
t
h
ā
t
10 s E E K IK Ṛ I
help in practical matters and, most of all, with their
support and encouragement. It is not possible to mention them
all, but we especially wish to thank Diwakar Acharya, Jim
Benson, Aurélien Berra, Maria Piera Candotti, Daniele
Cuneo, Vladislav Dolidon, Chantal Duhuy, Carlo Fabrizio,
Barbara Faticoni, Gerdi Gerschheimer, Paolo Giunta, Dominic
Goodall, Phyllis Granoff, Thomas Green, Arlo Griffths,
Stefan Hagel, Stanley Insley, S. Jagannatha, Nirajan Kafe,
Eivind Kahrs, Mrinal Kaul, Corinne Lagarde-Chapdelaine,
Philipp Maas, Anne Marie Menta, Amruta Nadu, Thomas
Oberlies, Ulrich Pagel, Cristina Pecchia, Tiziana Pontillo,
Karin Preisendanz, N. Ramaswamy (Babu), G. Ravindran,
John Smith, Federico Squarcini, Raffaele Torella, Michael
Willis and Dominik Wujastyk.
We also wish to thank the following institutions for their
contribution and support to this project: the Centre
national de la recherche scientifque (Paris), the École française
d’Extrême-Orient (Paris and Pondicherry), the École des
hautes études en sciences sociales (Paris), the École pratique
des hautes études (Paris), the Institut d’études indiennes
(Collège de France, Paris) and the Facoltà di Studi
Orientali, Università La Sapienza (Rome).
The following collections have kindly given us access to
their manuscripts: Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Institute of Indology
(Ahmedabad), Allahabad Museum (Allahabad), Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan (Allahabad), Maharaja’s Library (Alwar),
Oriental Research Institute (Baroda), Sampurnananda
Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya (Benares), Sayaji Rao Gaekwad Central
Library (Benares), Orissa State Museum (Bhubaneshwar),
Asiatic Society (Calcutta), University of Calicut (Calicut),
Niedersächsischen Staats- und Universitäts- Bibliothek
(Göttingen), Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute
(Hoshiarpur), Shri Ranbir Sanskrit (Jammu),
Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute (Jodhpur), National
Archives (Kathmandu), India Offce Library (London),
Adyar Library (Madras), Government Oriental Manuscript
Library (Madras), Asiatic Society of Bombay (Mumbai),
Oriental Research Institute (Mysore), Tatyasaheb Garge
Collection (Nasik), Anandashrama (Pune), Bhandarkar
Oriental Institute (Pune), Vedic Samshodhan
Mandal (Pune), Varendra Research Museum (Rajshahi,
Bangladesh), Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire
(Strasbourg), Sarasvati Mahal Library (Tanjore), Kalamandalam
(Trichur), Government Sanskrit College (Tripunithura), s
n
m
g
d
l
w
o
n
c
t
a K E E E 11
Oriental Research Institute (Trivandrum), Pejawar Mutth
(Udupi), Prajña Pathashala (Wai) and Beinecke Library,
University of Yale (New Haven).
The collation of manuscripts has been carried out by
Anuja Ajotikar, Tanuja Ajotikar, Bharati Balte, Sarita
Chandramohan Kulkarni, Asawari Kedar Gokhale, Prasad Joshi, Mukta
Atul Keskar, Sasmita Khuntia Dash, Gayatri Shrinivas Tillu,
Prachi Sohani, K. Venugopalan (Pune), Hari Narayana Bhat,
Lalitha Bhat, Anjaneya Sarma (Pondicherry), Paolo Giunta,
Vincenzo Vergiani (Rome) and Pascale Haag (Paris).t
u
d
i
t
s
t
i
n
v
t
h
ā
ś
ā
12 s E E K IK Ṛ I13
Abbreviations
A. Aṣṭādhyāyī
C. Cāndravyākaraña
CV Cāndravṛtti
DN Devanāgarī
KV Kāśikāvṛtti
M. Mahābhāṣya
MD Mahābhāṣyadīpikā
Ny Nyāsa
PIŚ Paribhāṣenduśekhara
PM Padamañjarī
Pr Mahābhāṣyapradīpa
psū Pratyāhārasūtra(s)
Ud Mahābhāṣyapradīpoddyota
US Uñādisūtra
vt vārttikat
u
d
i
t
s
t
i
n
v
t
h
ā
ś
ā
14 s E E K IK Ṛ I15
Preface
As the oldest extant complete commentary on Pāṇini’s
Aṣṭādhyāyī, the Kaśikāvṛtti (KV) occupies a unique place in
the history of Indian grammatical literature. It is
generalth 1ly believed to have been composed in the 7 century C.E.
and it is traditionally considered the work of two authors,
2Jayāditya and Vāmana, about whom virtually nothing is
1 Its terminus post quem is set by a partial quotation of a verse from the
thKirātārjunīya of Bhāravi, who is dated to the late 6 century (see Kane, 1961:
119-20), which is found in the vṛtti on A. 1.3.23. As for the terminus ante
thquem, it was previously tentatively set around the early 8 century, namely
the date assigned to its earliest commentary, the Nyāsa of Jinendrabuddhi,
that is probably alluded to by Māgha, the author of the Śiśupālavadha (for
the details, see Cardona, 1976: 280-81). This date is now more frmly estab -
lished thanks to the recent works of Funayama (1999: 92) and Steinkellner,
Krasser and Lasic (2005: xl-xlii). The latter bring new evidence, in fact,
that allows the commentator of the KV to be identifed with the author of
the ṭīkā on Diṅnāga’s Pramāñasamuccaya, namely certain similarities in the
colophons of the two works. As the nyāsakāra is quoted by the poetician
thBhāmaha (frst half of the 8 century; cf. also Kane, 1961: 118-19), three
verses of whom are quoted by the Buddhist author Śāntarākṣita (725-788),
who in turn seems to know the work of the ṭīkākāra, this confrms that
thJinendrabuddhi must have fourished around the beginning of the 8
centhtury and, therefore, that the KV dates to the 7 century.
2 The tradition generally assigned the frst fve chapters to Jayāditya
and the last three to Vāmana (see Belvalkar, 1915: 30). However, D.C. Bhat-t
u
d
i
t
s
t
i
n
v
t
h
ā
ś
ā
16 s E E K IK Ṛ I
3known. A number of questions about its composition and
relationship with other texts belonging either to the early
Pāṇinian tradition or to other grammatical schools— in
particular, the Cāndra and the Jainendra— still remain
unanswered and require to be investigated in depth, as is pointed
out by the authors of the articles that form the second part
of this volume. Thus, Johannes Bronkhorst reminds us that
attempts to assign certain parts of the text to either Jayāditya
or Vāmana have so far led to inconclusive results, but he also
points out ways in which a text-critical investigation of the
KV might shed light on the transmission of the Mahābhāṣya;
Anjaneya Sarma and Saroja Bhate independently examine
the similarities and the divergences between the KV and the
Mahābhāṣya, and while the former stresses the composite
nature of the text, the latter suggests that the two works may
in fact belong to two different strands of the Pāṇinian
tradition; Émilie Aussant compares the pratyāhāra sections in
the KV and the Cāndravṛtti, bringing out their striking
affnities, while Vincenzo Vergiani shows that both these texts
are likely to have borrowed from the Mahābhāṣyadīpikā of
Bhartṛhari; and, fnally, Pascale Haag examines the
paratextual elements and the auspicious introductory verses in the
manuscript tradition of the KV, formulating a hypothesis on
the infuence that its two major commentaries, the Nyāsa
and the Padamañjarī, may have had on its transmission.
Signifcantly, some of these studies could already rely
on the evidence provided by the critical scrutiny of the
available manuscript sources for the KV’s section on the
Pratyāhārasūtras. This evidence, which is presented in the frst
part of the volume, shows, against all possible skepticism, that
a critical edition of the whole text is indeed a worthy
enterprise, even though “the reconstruction of the stemma that
depicts the historical interrelationship between the
manuscripts of the Kāśikā may not be possible”, as Bronkhorst, who
frst launched such an enterprise, warns in his contribution.
tacharya (1922: 190-91) showed that this neat division is not convincing,
and today the issue of the exact extent of the portions composed by each
of the two authors is still debated (for recent discussions on this issue, see
Bronkhorst 1983: App. I; Kulkarni 2002).
3 Some authors have suggested that at least one of them, namely
Jayāditya, was a Buddhist (see Belvalkar 1915: 29; Shastri 1931: xxiv and
xxvii-xviii; and more recently, Radicchi 2002), but this idea seems to be
based more on their personal intuition than on solid evidence of any kind,
which is in fact nowhere given.b
r
o
h
k
n
o
r
a
y
r
a
h
a
t
t
a
i
l
i
o
g
r
a
s
h
l
a
l
k
a
r
y
h
t
l
a
f
r
p
i
h
i
d
a
i
n
r
a
k
a
r
u
d
o
n
a
c
u
n
a
y
a
m
a
a
n
E E 17
And yet, as is explained in detail below in the Introduction,
the results of our work on the pratyāhāra section of the KV
seem to suggest that even this goal may turn out to be within
reach. However, we are aware that, given the limited extent
of the psū section, the results based on this section alone are
necessarily of a provisional nature and need to be validated
by those which will be obtained through the exercise of
textual criticism on later sections of the KV.
Saroja Bhate, Pascale Haag and Vincenzo Vergiani
b P
bE V , Shripad Krishna (1915), An account of the different
existing systems of Sanskrit grammar [reprint:
Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, Delhi 1976].
b C , Dinesh Chandra (1922), “Pāṇinian studies in
Bengal”, Sir Asutosh Mookerjee Silver Jubilee Volumes,
vol. 1, University of Calcutta, Calcutta.
b , Johannes (1983), “On the History of Pāṇinian
Grammar in the early centuries following Patañjali”,
Journal of Indian Philosophy, 11, pp. 357-412.
C , George (1976), Pāñini. A Survey of Research, Motilal
Banarsidass, Delhi.
F , Tori (1999), “Kamalaśīla’s interpretation of
‘non-erroneous’ in the defnition of direct
perception and related problems”, in Katsura, S. (Ed.),
Dharmakīrti’s thought and Its Impact on Indian and
t ibetan Philosophy. Proceedings of the third Dharmakīrti
Conference, Hiroshima, November 4-6, 1997, Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Wien, pp. 73-99.
k E, Pandurang Vaman (1961), History of Sanskrit Poetics,
Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.
k , Malhar (2002), “Manuscript evidence on the issue
of the authorship of the Kāśikāvṛtti”, in Thite, G.U.
(Ed.), Subhāṣiñī. Prof. Dr. Saroja Bhate Felicitation
Volume, Sanskrit Pracharini Sabha, Pune, pp. 208-216.
r CC , Anna (2002), “Two Buddhist Grammarians:
Candragomin and Jayāditya”, in Deshpande, M.M., h
ā
v
s
t
t
s
r
a
s
i
i
r
t
s
a
a
i
r
t
t
u
d
i
n
s
k
ś
i
l
t
h
l
n
r
n
ā
18 s E E K IK Ṛ I
Hook, P.E. (Eds.), Indian Linguistic Studies. Festschrift
in Honor of George Cardona, Motilal Banarsidass, New
Delhi, pp. 182-201.
s , Hara Prasad (1931), A descriptive catalogue of Sanskrit
manuscripts in the Government collection under the care
of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. VI, The Asiatic
Society, Calcutta.
s E E E , Ernst, k E , Helmut, l C, Horst (2005),
Jinendrabuddhi’s Viśālāmalavatī Pramāñasamuccayaṭīkā,
Chapter 1, Part 1: Critical Edition, China Tibetology
Publishing House-Austrian Academy of Sciences
Press, Beijing-Vienna.i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
o
n
.
I It
u
d
i
t
s
t
i
n
v
t
h
ā
ś
ā
20 s E E K IK Ṛ Ia
s
a
l
a
a
g
21
P C E h

Introduction
This chapter and the following one present our
motivations for undertaking the task of preparing a critical edition
of the Kāśikāvṛtti (KV). A brief editorial history of the KV,
revolving around two major events, its editio princeps and its frst
purportedly “critical” edition, will help to place our effort in
a broader perspective. This will be followed in the next
chapter/ section of this book by a description of the methodology
we have adopted in the various stages of our research, and
a discussion of the variant readings that we have accepted
1into the reconstituted text. A description of the manuscripts
used for this edition can be found in the end of the
Introduction of this volume, before the beginning of the edition.
1. the frst printed edition of the KV
In 1938, in his Descriptive Catalogue of the manuscripts kept
at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune,
Bel1 It is worth pointing out at the very start that in order to help
readers to locate the references to the text here, as well as in the translation
and the other contributions that are published in this volume, we have
divided the edition of the psū section into numbered paragraphs that
refect its internal structure. For a quick reference, see the “Synopsis” that
precedes the translation.v
t
u
d
i
s
t
i
n
t
t
h
ā
ś
ā
22 s E E K IK Ṛ I
valkar had already expressed the opinion that a critical
edi2tion of this work was most needed. In fact, even seventy years
later, the KV, like the majority of the texts belonging to the
3Pāṇinian tradition, has still not had a proper critical edition.
Most of the editions of the KV seem to be infuenced
by the frst printed edition by Paṇḍit Bāla Śāstrī, which
ap4peared in Benares in the journal the Pandit between 1873
5and 1879. At least as far as the psū section is concerned, this
corresponds to a great extent to a northern “recension” of
the text that, as far as we can tell from our work on this
section, sometimes differs to a considerable extent from what is
found in other sources, especially southern ones. However,
due to the wider and faster circulation of the newly printed
text as well as —presumably— its greater prestige, this
became the text of the KV for modern scholarship.
Even the only edition of the KV that ever claimed to be
“critical”, the so-called Osmania edition, does not
substantially differ from that “prototype”. Mutatis mutandis,
Olivelle’s remarks on the role played by printed editions of the
Upaniṣads in the transmission of these texts and the
scholarship on them are also relevant in our case: “The problem
is... when a particular conjecture is reproduced in the edited
text, especially if it is an infuential edition, then the
conjecture becomes accepted passively by later scholarship...”
(Olivelle 1998: 179). We do not know Bāla Śāstri’s reasons
for choosing certain readings, but it seems certain that they
6infuenced the editors of the Osmania edition. Moreover, in
spite of its merits, the latter also manifests some serious faws
2 Belvalkar, 1938, vol. II, part 1, p. 48.
3 Even the existing translations are few and, altogether, they do not
cover more than part of the frst two books (for references to existing
translations, see the Bibliography on the Kāśikāvṛtt iin this volume). For
example, the initial section on psū, which is critically edited and translated
here, has never before been rendered into any Western language.
4 For (a glimpse of) the crucial role played by this journal in the rise
of a new kind of native Sanskritic scholarship, see Dodson 2007, in
particular pp. 51-54.
5 Pāñini’s aphorisms with the commentary of Jayāditya and Vāmana,
Edited by Paṇḍit Bāla Śāstrī, in t he Pandit, Old Series no. 8 (1873-1874),
no. 9 (1874-1875), no. 10 (1875-1876) & New Series no. 1 (1876-1877), no.
2 (1877-1878), no. 3 (1878-1879). The same was published as a book in
Kāśikā, a commentary on Pāñini’s grammatical aphorisms by Pañḍit Vāmana
and Jayāditya, edited by Paṇḍit Bāla Śāstrī, Benares, Medical Hall Press,
1876 (vol. 1) and 1878 (vol. 2).
6 For an illustration of this infuence, see the remarks on par. 21 in the
next chapter “2.1 Minor variant readings”.n
t
c
u
d
o
r
t
n
o
23I. I I
and limitations, as will be shown in the next paragraph.
2. the Osmania edition
The Osmania edition published in 1969 by Aryendra
Sharma, Khanderao Deshpande and G.D. Padhye owes its
name to the publisher, the Osmania University of Hyderabad
7(Andhra Pradesh). It is based on nine mss (or transcripts of
mss) and two earlier printed editions and is provided with
a negative critical apparatus. Among the nine mss used by
the editors, four are in Devanāgarī, one each in Grantha,
Telugu and Malayālam scripts and two are not specifed, so
they too are presumably in Devanāgarī. Four of these have
3 4also been used for the present edition: our mss G (= फ), M
6 3 8(there named ब, with a DN letter), M (= क), and T (= ग).
Among the other ms sources referred to in the Osmania
critical apparatus, two (named इ and ज) do not contain the
psū section; one (named अ), belonging to the Osmania
University Library, turned out to be lost, that is untraceable, in
9December 1995; another one (named ई) is an unspecifed
“Photocopy of the Kāsikā with the Padamañjarī supplied by
Dr. S.M. Katre, Poona”, presumably the reproduction of a
DN ms, which we were unable to locate or identify; and,
fnally, one Malayālam ms (named ह) kept in the Adyar
Library of Chennai, which we could procure but which no
longer contains the frst few folios with the psū. Further -
more, there is a “copy of the Kāśikā with variant readings
10noted by Dr. Liebich in his own handwriting” from one
unidentifed source that is called ड in the apparatus.
Although the authors made a remarkable and
commend7 See Bibliography for details.
8 See Osmania edn., “Manuscripts and printed books used”, p. vii.
9 See Y. Ramseier’s unpublished survey of all KV mss, section on
Andhra Pradesh, under Hyderabad, Osmania University, CN : hy (aa),
Access and Cat. no.: A 3, 12 Ta 3/6. According to the descriptive catalogue
of the library (A catalogue of the Sanskrit Mss in the Osmania University
Library, Hyderabad, Sanskrit Academy, Osmania University, 1964), quoted
thby Ramseier, the ms dated to the 18 century. In all likelihood it was in
Devanāgarī, as the script is not specifed neither here nor in the Osmania
edn. (p. vii). For a concordance between the sigla used in Ramseier’s
survey and those employed here, see the table at the end of the description
of manuscripts, before the beginning of the edition.
10 As the editors specify in the Introduction, no information is
available on the source or sources from which Liebich drew the variants (Kāśikā,
Osmania edn., p. v).t
t
u
d
i
s
t
i
n
v
t
h
ā
ś
ā
24 s E E K IK Ṛ I
able effort, their textual basis was clearly inadequate for the
task, given that more than three hundred mss of the KV
were recorded during the world-wide survey carried out by
Yves Ramseier (helped by Malhar Kulkarni), a member of
the team of the University of Lausanne directed by Johannes
Bronkhorst who frst launched the project of a new “truly”
11critical edition of the KV in the early 1990’s. Moreover, the
editors’ reasons for choosing those particular mss are not
ex12plained, and in some cases their choices are quite puzzling.
Furthermore, the variety of scripts and the diversity in
regional provenance of the existing KV mss are
underrepresented by the sample used for the Osmania edition, since this
includes no mss in Śāradā, Nandināgarī, Bengali or Oriya
scripts, just to mention the other scripts found in our sources
(a few more scripts are used in other sources not covering
our section). One consequence of this is that the variant
readings reported in the Osmania edition are much less
nu13merous than those attested to by our body of evidence.
Finally, being negative, the Osmania critical apparatus is
less informative than a positive one, as is to be expected. But
besides that, it is often not clear which word or words in the
text are replaced by the variant readings reported in the
apparatus. And in the sources that were used both for the
Osmania and the present edition, we also detected a number of
places where the former does not accurately report the
read14ings found in the mss. Here are a few examples (all taken
11 The Lausanne project had to be abandoned in the late Nineties
because of various diffculties. Prof. Bronkhorst has been so kind as to make
all the materials and information collected by his team available to us. We
wish to thank him, once again, for his generosity and cooperation.
12 6 Consider, for example, their ms. क, corresponding to our M , one
of eight mss of the KV belonging to the Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute in Pune: it is neither particularly old —being dated śaka 1790 =
C.E. 1868, although in the Osmania edn., p. vii, it is said to be from the
th18 century— nor very good, as it abounds in scribal mistakes.
13 Just to give a few examples from a passage chosen at random, no
variant readings are given for śakyam in par. 20 (as is explained above, we
have divided the text into numbered paragraphs for ease of reference),
while 7 of our mss read śaṃkyam; in the same paragraph, yayi is transposed
after parasavarñe in 25 mss (not recorded in the Osmania edn.); in par. 21,
akāraḥ is added after lakāre tv in 18 sources (not recorded in the Osmania
edn.); at the very end of par. 22, 3 mss read iṣyate in the place of grahañam
asya dṛśyate (again, no variant reading in the Osmania edn.), and so forth.
14 Clearly, we could only double-check the sources that we share with
the Osmania edn. For the sake of clarity, we give our sigla frst, followed
by the corresponding sigla in the Osmania edn. in brackets. The unre-n
t
c
u
d
o
r
t
n
o
̐
25I. I I
from just one page, approximately corresponding to our
paragraphs 22-25) of this unfortunate lack of clarity and accuracy:
6 4 p. 4, n. 7. hi is not missing in M (क). Nor is it missing in M
(ब). Therefore, one cannot suppose that it is simply a matter of
confusion of sigla —namely that variants reported as
belong6 4ing to M (क) are actually found in M (ब) and vice versa— as
the case of the following variant reading might suggest.
4p. 4, n. 8. M (ब) does not read pullokam; it omits yallokam and
6reads only tallokam. However, pumllokaṃ is found in M (क),
but this is not reported in the Osmania edn.
p. 4, n. 10. There are two problems here: the first variant
seems to indicate that parataḥ is read instead of yayi, whereas
it is read after yayi; moreover, the source indicated by the
Osmania edn. is wrong: the ms where the reading yayi parataḥ is
6 4found is not M (क), but M (ब). The second variant is actually
a variant for the phrase parasavarñe kṛte that follows yayi, not
for yayi itself.
3p. 4, n. 11. T (ग) does not read yaygrahañena in the place of
yargrahañena.
p. 4, n. 15. The apparatus records the omission of the three
3words following the note number in G (फ), but in fact they
are missing because there is a lacuna in the ms, which
—nowadays— covers approximately thirty akṣaras.
3p. 4, n. 17. According to the critical apparatus, T (ग) reads
ke cit ca sarvāñy eva, but this is not true. In fact, it reads ke cit
tu sarvāñy etāni like our received text.
p. 4, n. 21. Nothing indicates that sādhyāyām does not replace
°pratipattau, but is added after it.
6p. 4, n. 22. M (क) actually reads pratipattipatigauravaṃ, not
pratipatter gauravaṃ.
p. 4, n. 24. A variant reading jhoḥ is reported for the word iti.
This seems quite unlikely. But on p. 5, n. 3, the same jhoḥ is
given as a variant for sdhvoḥ. This suggest that the note
number of n. 24 is misplaced and should actually appear after the
word sdhvoḥ on the same line.
Finally, a very conspicuous illustration of the
shortcomings of the Osmania edn. is the way in which it simply
ignores the problems of transmission of the fnal portion of
the Pratyāhāra section (par. 33). There are hardly two
identical versions of this passage in our mss, and it has proved
quite diffcult to sort them out, although, once minor
variliability of the variant readings given in the Osmania edn. was already
pointed out by S. Dash (2003: 15-16) who worked on a later section (A.
4.1) of the KV with a partly different set of mss. See also Bhimasena
Shastri’s critical remarks, quoted in Kulkarni (2004: 177). ā
t
u
d
i
s
t
i
n
t
t
h
v
ā
ś
26 s E E K IK Ṛ I
ants are set aside, it is possible to group the sources sharing
certain structural features. The complexity of the
transmission is shown by our apparatus and is discussed in greater
15detail in the next chapter (see “Major variant readings”) .
However, the passage is reported in the Osmania edn. as if
there were virtually no variant readings.
It is then clear that a critical edition of the KV based on a
wider textual basis and a more rigorous methodology is still
needed, and this is what we have tried to provide with this
16sample covering the initial section of the text. Some more
data on the available manuscript sources of the KV will help
to strengthen our argument for a new critical edition.

3. the extant mss of the KV
The importance and popularity of the KV across the
subcontinent is attested by the large number of mss that
Ramseier recorded in his survey, prepared through the
consultation of existing catalogues and unpublished hand-lists
as well as the direct examination of mss in South Asia and
elsewhere.
The geographical distribution of the KV mss over the
various regions of the subcontinent appears quite uniform:
12 are recorded in Gujarat, 5 in Rajasthan, 3 in Lahore
(Pakistan), 10 in Jammu, 3 in Kashmir, 2 in Punjab, 30 in Uttar
Pradesh, 14 in Nepal, 21 in West Bengal, 23 in Bangladesh,
1 in Orissa, 23 in Maharashtra, 4 in Andhra Pradesh, 19 in
Karnataka, 78 in Kerala and 46 in Tamil Nadu. 15 mss (most
of them in DN) belong to different collections in Europe or
17the U.S.A. As for the scripts used in these mss, more than
one hundred are in DN, approximately 90 in Malayālam, 40
in Grantha, more than 30 in Bengali, a dozen in Śāradā, 8 in
Maithili, half a dozen in Nandināgarī and in Telugu
respec18tively, and one each in Kannada and Oriya.
15 For a detailed treatment of this passage, see Haag, forthcoming.
16 Considering the unreliability of the readings recorded in the
Osmania edn. for the four mss it shares with this edition, we have decided not to
report in our critical apparatus the readings given there for the mss that
were inaccessible to us, for their accuracy is presumably equally dubious.
17 The fgures given in this section are to be taken as rough approxima -
tions, as we have not been able to verify all of them personally.
18 Generally, the mss written in southern scripts belong to South Indian
collections, with a few exceptions; on the other hand, DN mss are not only
found in the North, but they also prevail in Maharashtra and form a
conspicuous group in West Bengal and in Thanjavur. n
t
c
u
d
o
r
t
n
o
27I. I I
Only a few of these mss are dated. Among them, the
oldthest is a DN ms on paper from the end of the 14 century
(saṃvat 1450 = 1393 C.E.), kept in the Sheth Bholabhai
Jeshingbhai Institute of Ahmedabad (Gujarat). About ten
thother paper mss go back to the 15 century. The two oldest
palm-leaf mss, both of them in Maithili script, come from
Nepal and are dated lakṣmaña saṃvat 358 and 376
respectively, i.e. 1488 and 1506 approximately, whereas the oldest
palm-leaf mss from South India are one in Malayālam from
the Adyar Library, dated Kollam Era 723 (= 1547 C.E.), and
another one from Trivandrum, dated Kollam Era 839 (1664
C.E.). Some of the Śāradā mss also appear to be quite old on
paleographic grounds. Among those that are dated, the
oldest, belonging to the Bhandarkar Institute (Pune) and
covering our section, was copied in saṃvat 1717 (= 1660 C.E.).
During our search for mss we could ascertain that a
19few of those catalogued as KV were in fact not KV mss.
On the other hand, we came across a number of mss that
had escaped Ramseier’s otherwise meticulous search:
notably, six mss in DN or Maithili script found in Nepal by
20the Nepali-German Manuscript Preservation Project; one
7in DN from Nasik, Maharashtra (our M ); one in Grantha
from Tiruvāvaṭuturai, Tamil Nadu (not including the psū
section); and three in Śāradā from Srinagar (Centre of
Central Asian Studies, University of Kashmir), which on two
different occasions were shown to our collaborators who,
unfortunately, were never allowed to reproduce them. The
nine mss used for the Osmania edn. are therefore just a tiny
fraction of the available sources, and more mss are likely to
resurface when and if a systematic search is carried out.
In order to overcome these limitations and lay frm and
reliable foundations for the continuation of the project,
more than seventy mss have been collated for the present
21edition of the initial section of the KV. Making a selection
of good and signifcant mss to be used for the critical edition
19 Most of these contain other grammatical works, such as one of the
KV subcommentaries, or much abridged versions of the KV itself, or
kaumudī-type texts.
20 However, it seems that none of them contains the psū section.
21 Among the more than three hundred recorded mss of the KV, a certain
number do not contain the psū section, while some of those containing it
(according to the existing catalogues) were not accessible to us either because
we did not get the permission to reproduce them (or sometimes even to see
them), or because they were misplaced and could not be located.