Critical comments by Bhānuji Dīkṣita on certain derivations of Kṣīrasvāmin

(a) Dyo (I.1.6; p.4)–

[Heaven:]

Kṣīrasvāmin derives the word as ending in ' o' on the basis of a statement in Mahābhāṣya thus–

dyośabdo'pyokārānto'sti bhāṣye gotoṇit ityatra—oto ṇiditi nyāsāntarāmnāyāt |

This satement of Mahābhāṣya cited by Kṣīrasvāmin is objected to by Bhānuji Dīkṣita remarking that such an interpretation or reading is not available–

svāmī tu—dyośabdo'pyokārānto'sti | bhāṣye goto ṇit ityatra oto ṇit iti pāṭhāmnānāt ityaha | tadapi na |smṛta uryeṇa sa smṛtaurityatra vṛddhividhāne na pāṭhasyopakṣīṇatvāt | yadapi—diveḥ kvip ityuktam | tadapi na | divau divā ityadau cchvoḥ śūṅ—ityūṭhaḥ prasaṅgāt |

(b) Śambhuḥ (I.1.30; p.11)–

[Śiva:]

Deriving the word Śambhuḥ gives the etymology of the word as–śaṃ bhavati āsmāt mitadravāditvāt (Vā. 2152) ḍuḥ | This is criticized by Bhānuji Dīkṣita on the basis that the kṛt suffixes are ordained only to the kartari and not for the apādāna cases. Bhānuji Dīkṣita sets it right by taking the verb bhavati to have the causative force latent in it–antarbhāvitaṇyanta.

(c) Śaṃkaraḥ (I.1.30; p.11)–

[Śiva:]

Kṣīrasvāmin derives the word employing the sūtra—kṛño hetutācchīlyānulomyeṣu (Pā. 3. 2. 20) which ordains the suffix ‘ṭa’ to the root ‘kṛñ’ when it denotes cause (hetu), habit (tātcchīlya) and going with the grain (ānulomya).

Bhānuji Dīkṣita objects the use of the sūtra kṛño hetu... by Kṣīrasvāmin, for he explains that the sūtra–śami dhātoḥ saṃjñāyām (Pā. 3.2.14) over rules the above, though the sūtra–kṛño is latter in sequence in Aṣṭādhyāyī. He explains that this is because, the repetition of the word dhātu in the sūtra–śami dhātoḥ saṃjñāyām clearly indicates the prohibition of the suffix ‘ṭa’ to the root ‘kṛñ’ when ‘śam’ is in composition (upapada).

Therefore the affix ‘ac’ will be ordained after the verb ‘kṛñ’ and not the affix ‘ṭa’ when ‘śam’ is in composition (upapada), even when the sense to be indicated is that of cause, habit or to go with the grain:

śaṃ karoti | śami dhātoḥ saṃjñāyāṃ ityac yattu kṛño hetu iti ṭaḥ iti svāmī | tanna āsyaiva ṭāpavādatvāt |

(d) Dhūrjaṭiḥ (I.1.33; p.11)–

[Śiva:]

Kṣīrasvāmin derives the word as dhūrgaṅgājaṭāsvasya dhūrjaṭiriti niruktam | Bhānuji Dīkṣita rejects this derivation, because if derived so, the word jaṭā cannot be justified for an ' i' ending in the compound. So he suggests the correction that the word jaṭi should be taken for derivation–dhūrgaṅgājaṭiṣvasyeti vaktumucitatvāt |

(e) Havyavāhanaḥ (I.1.55; p.18)–

[Fire:]

Kṣīrasvāmin derives it as–havyaṃ vāhayati devānnayati havyavāhanaḥ, havyapurīṣapurīṣyeṣu ñyuṭ (Pā.3.2.65) havye'nantaḥ pādama (Pā.3.2.66).

Bhānuji Dīkṣita objects the above derivation on two reasons, viz.:

(i) The reading of the sūtra havyapurīṣapurīṣyeṣu ñyuṭ is itself wrong, for the sūtra is kavyapurīṣapurīṣyeṣu ñyuṭ |

(ii) From the anuvṛtti, the affix ' ṇvi' follows from the sūtra–' vahaśca' (Pā.3.2.64) which is an all disappearing affix sarvalopi pratyaya and cannot help in arriving at the form vāhanaḥ–

yattu svāmī—havyaṃ vāhayati iti vigṛhya havyapurīṣapurīṣyeṣu ñyuṭ ityaha | tanna | udāhṛtapāṭhasyānupalambhāt | kavyapurīṣapurīṣyeṣu—iti pāṭhasyopalambhāt | vahaśca ityanuvṛtterṇyantādasambhavācca |

Bhānuji Dīkṣita derives the word as havyaṃ vāhayati ṇyantād vaheḥ and by applying the sūtra–nāndigrahipacādibhyo lyuṇinyacaḥ (Pā.3.1.134). Here Bhānuji Dīkṣita has ordained ‘ṇic’ pratyaya to the verb ‘vah’ thus arriving at vāh and then by the above lyu pratyaya and arrives at the form vāhanaḥ.

To improve upon the derivation of Bhānuji Dīkṣita the śiṣṭa prayoga suggests that the word should be split as havyasya vāhanaḥ the advantage of this is the derivation of the form vāhanaḥ would be independent and does not recquire the presence of an upapada as in kuṃbhaṃ kāraḥ where the kāra cannot be arrived at independently as the sūtra warrants the presence of an object–

karmaṇyaṇ—karmaṇyupapade dhātoḥ āṇ pratyayaḥ syāt |

(f) Rayaḥ (I.1.64; p.20)–

[Speed:]

Kṣīrasvāmin derives the word as riṇāti rayate vā'nena rayaḥ āc |T here are two roots -one ending in a consonant and another ending in a vowel

(1) rī gatireṣaṇayoḥ riṇāti kryādi gaṇa | (2) raya gatau rayate bhvādi Bhānuji Dīkṣita takes the first case in which by the sūtra erac (Pā. 3.3.56), ac suffix is ordained by Kṣīrasvāmin But Bhānuji Dīkṣita remarks that since the word is split in Karaṇa artha, the lyuṭ is ordained by karaṇādhikaraṇayośca and this is over ruled by pumsi.... ghah. Thus gha pratyaya is applied to the verb ' rī' to get the form rayaḥ.

(2) If the root ' ray' is taken, then Bhānuji Dīkṣita suggests that again erac cannot be applied as it ends in consonant—

riṇātyanena | rī gatireṣaṇayoḥ | erac (Pā. 3.3.56) rayaḥ—iti svāmimukuṭau | tanna | karaṇe lyuṭo bādhakasya satvāt | tasmāt puṃsi saṃjñāyāṃ ghaḥ prāyeṇa (Pā. 3.3.118) iti ghaḥ | rayate'nena vā raya gatau puṃsi (Pā.3.3.118) iti ghaḥ | halaśca (Pā. 3.3.121) iti ghañi tu saṃjñāpūrvakatvādvṛddhyabhāvaḥ |

Bhānuji Dīkṣita suggests that the rule–puṃsi ghaḥ does not warrant any specifications in the dhātu; that is, it is applied to all roots whereas erac is applied only to roots with i endings and cannot to applied to dhātu ray which ends in consonant y. Bhānuji Dīkṣita suggests another rule halaśca ghañi which also could be applied to derive at the same form and since it has a saṃjñā vācāka the vṛddhi does not take place.

Thus in the above six instances, Kṣīrasvāmin's derivations of the words against the convention and Bhānuji Dīkṣita 's defence of conventional derivation have been seen.

At this point the observation made by Madhusūdan Miśra^[1] that:

“Existence of different branches of Pāṇini's school cannot be ruled out, since we find difference in reading of the sūtra's between Kāśikā, Patañjali and Kātyāyana”.

Such being the case it needs more study to decide where and how and by what tradition Kṣīrasvāmin has given his derivations.

Another set of six instances are cited below where inspite of Bhānuji Dīkṣita 's criticism, Kṣīrasvāmin's arguments seem to be right and purposeful under different reasononigs.

(g) Airāvaṇa (I. 1. 46; p. 15)–

[Indra’s elephant:]

Kṣīrasvāmin derives the word as follows–

irāvaṇodbhava airāvaṇaḥ | vibhāṣauṣadhīti (Pā. 8.4.6) vā ṇatvam |

The process of compounding in this case must be as follows–irā vana - tatra bhavaḥ (Pā. 4.3.53); where ' irā' denotes auṣadhi so that the sūtra vibhāṣauṣadhivanaspatibhyaḥ may be employed for the cerebralisation of na in the compound. By the sūtra the cerebralisation is optional, which is also mentioned by Kṣīrasvāmin, which suggests that he prefered both the forms with cerebralisation and without cerebralisation—Airāvaṇa and Airāvana.

Bhānuji Dīkṣita derives the word in two ways–(i) First by taking the word vaṇa signifying sound -vaṇa śabde -irāyā udakena vaṇati vaṇa śabde pacādyac (Pā. 3.1.134). tataḥ prajñādyaṇ | (Pā. 5.4.38). In this case there is no necessity for cerebralisation as the word vaṇa itself is with cerebral.

(ii) In the second method–irā surā vanamudakaṃ yasmin, the word irāvaṇa is derived by the sūtra–pūrvapadāt saṃjñāyām (Pā. 8.4.3); irāvaṇe bhavaḥ; tatra bhavaḥ (Pā. 4.3.53) iti āṇ airāvaṇa |

Thus Bhānuji Dīkṣita objects to the application of the sūtra vibhāṣauṣadhī by Kṣīrasvāmin for he remarks that it would give the optional cerebralisation of na–

svāmī tu—irāvaṇe bhavaḥ | tatra bhavaḥ ityaṇ | vibhāṣauṣadhi iti vā ṇatvam iti | tanna | airāvana ityapyasyāpi prāpteḥ |

This statement of Bhānuji Dīkṣita seems redundant for Kṣīrasvāmin himself mentions that the cerebralisation is optional and probably intended or that he approved both the forms.

(h) Bharaḥ (I. 1. 66; pp. 20-1)–

[Repeat or frequent:]

Kṣīrasvāmin derives it as follows–bharaḥ pūrṇatā bhṛ bharaṇe ṛdorap (Pā. 3.3.57).

Bhānuji Dīkṣita objects that in the sense of karaṇa, the ‘lyuṭ’ pratyaya over rules and hence the above cannot be applied. But this criticism has no strong grounds as the sense of karaṇa is not mentioned by Kṣīrasvāmin, he only derives it in bhāvārtha.

(i) Proṣṭapadāḥ, Bhadrapadāḥ (I. 2. 23; p. 28)–

[The Bhādrapada asterism:]

Kṣīrasvāmin derives it as proṣṭhau sārau padāvasyāḥ proṣṭhapadā, ārthagrahaṇād bhadrapadā, suprātaḥsuśveti (Pā.5.4.120) sādhuḥ | phalgunīproṣṭhapadānāṃ ca nakṣatre (Pā. 1.1.60) iti vā bahutvam | Bhānuji Dīkṣita objects this statement of Kṣīrasvāmin stating that the word bhadrapadāḥ is not mentioned in the sūtra.

According to Bhānuji Dīkṣita the word bhadrapadāḥ is derived as:

bhadraṃ padaṃ yāsāṃ tāḥ | ātrāropādbahutvam |

The plurality is ordained to the word by imposition:

yattu—suprāta—iti proṣṭhapadā bhadrapadāśca nipātitāḥ—iti mukuṭaḥ | tanna | bhadrapadaśabdasya tatrāgrahaṇāt | etena ārthagrahaṇādbhadrapadā iti svāmyuktirapi parāstā |

It is a general rule that the science of grammar is enumerated for the words individually and their synomys cannot take the same conditions as applicable for them.

It is interesting to note that the Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa (5. 4. 140) has the following sūtra parallel to the above which includes the word Bhadrapadāḥ in the rule–

suprātasuśvasudivaśārikukṣacaturaśraiṇīpadājapadaproṣṭhapadabhadrapadāḥ |

Since Kṣīrasvāmin seems to quote Bhoja very often, probably the influence of his text is seen in the above instance.

(ii) Kādraveyāḥ (I. 7. 4; p. 57)–Snakes: Kṣīrasvāmin derives as follows–

kadrvā āpatyani kādraveyāḥ śubhrāditvāt (Pā. 4.1.123) ḍhak na tu strībhyo ḍhak (Pā. 4.1.120) kadrukamaṇḍalvośchandasyūṅvidheḥ (Pā. 4.1.71), sarpebhyo'nye devayonayo'mī |

From the above, it is clear that Kṣīrasvāmin prefers to apply the ḍhak pratyaya by the rule śubhrāditvāt and not by strībhyo ḍhak, as he opines that the latter rule recquires the feminine suffix in the word for the application of ḍhak pratyaya; and that the feminine suffix is ordained by the rule kadrukamaṇḍalvośchandasyūṅvidheḥ, for the words in the Vedas alone. So in classical literature the feminine gender suffix not being ordained for kadru, Kṣīrasvāmin prefers the rule śubhrāditvāt as the word kadru is also found in the śubhrādi gaṇa.

Sarvananda also follows Kṣīrasvāmin in applying the rule śubhrāditvāt to derive Kādraveyāḥ Bhānuji Dīkṣita derives the word as follows–

kadrvā āpatyani |strībhyo ḍhak | ḍhe lopo'kadrvāḥ iti ṭilopābhāve orguṇaḥ | yattu—svāmī—śubhrāditvāt ḍhak na tu strībhyo ḍhak | kadrukamaṇḍalvośchandasyūṅvidheḥ ityaha tanna | saṃjñāyām iti loke'pyūṅvidhānāt |

As seen above it is interesting to note that Bhānuji Dīkṣita derives the word by strībhyo ḍhak which Kṣīrasvāmin opines to be inapplicable. Bhānuji Dīkṣita justifies his usage and refutes the statement of Kṣīrasvāmin by citing the rule saṃjñāyām (Pā.4.1.72), which is the next immediate rule to kadrukama...., ordains ḍhak pratyaya even to the words used in classical literarture.

(j) Analysis of Kṣīrasvāmin's above derivation:

(i) The word kadru in the Vedas gets the suffix ‘ūṅ’ by the rule kadrukamaṇḍalvo.... and hence the rule strībhyo ḍhak is applied.

(ii) In classical language the word kadru has the suffix ūṅ only if it is a name–saṃjñā. In such an instance also, the rule strībhyo ḍhak applies.

(iii) But in classical literature, if the word kadru is not a name, but a yaugika term, then in such an instance both the above rules do not apply and as suggested by Kṣīrasvāmin only śubhrāditvāt has to be applied to get the desired form.

(iv) So the derivation of Kṣīrasvāmin would be right if the mother of Nāgas was popularly called Kadru and it must not be her saṃjñā.

It is also interesting to observe that the derivation of the word Kādraveyāḥ, signifying the mother of Nāgas, is denoted by the rule śubhrāditvāt by many later dictionaries–Śabdakalpadruma (Vol- II,p.84); Vācaspatyam (Vol-III, p. 1882); Śabdārthakaustubha; Taddhitārthakośa; Sanskrit-English Dictionary Monier Williams (1963 ed. p. 270).

(k) Dākṣāyiṇyaḥ (I. 2.22; p.27)–

[Stars:]

Kṣīrasvāmin derives the word in two ways–

(i) The progeny of Dakṣa–dākṣāyaṇī is effected by the rule ata iñ (Pā. 4.1.95) and he remarks that by the rule yañiñośca (Pā. 4.1.101), phak pratyaya can be ordained even for the anantarāpatya (though by the actual condition, it is to be applied only for the yuvāpatya and can never be applied for anantarāpatya).

But Kṣīrasvāmin suggests that the rule be applied in anantarāpatya as in the case of dvaipāyana—

dakṣasyāpatyaṃ dākṣāyaṇī, āta iñ, ānantarāpatyepi dvaipāyanavat, yañiñośceti phak |

(ii) yadvā ito manuṣyajāteḥ ityatra iña upasaṃkhyānād ṅīṣ, kauravyamāṇḍūkābhyāṃca iti cakārādāsurāyaṇavat ṣphaḥ taddhitaḥ |

In the second case, he says that by the rule–ito.... ṅīṣ (Pā. 4.1.65) and by kauravya..... (Pā.4.1.19) ṣpha is ordained by the ' ca' in the rule which provides for the form āsurāyaṇī.

Bhānuji Dīkṣita objects to both these derivations as follows–

(i) Firstly he says that the suffix phak is not found in the sense of anantarāpatya for the rule yañiñośca ordains phak in the sense of yuvāpatya.

(ii) Secondly the example cited by Kṣīrasvāmin namely dvaipāyana is derived with the help of the rule ṛṣyaṇ and not by yañiñośca–

yattu—āta iñ ānantarāpatyepi dvaipāyanavat yañiñośca iti phak -iti svāmyāha | tadapi na | ānantarāpatye phako'darśanāt | dvīpamayanamasya dvīpāyanaḥ | ṛṣyaṇ iti dvaipāyanaśabdavyutpatterdṛṣṭāntāsaṃbhavācca |

He adds that Kṣīrasvāmin's application of these rules reveal that by ata iñ itself the sense of apatya is denoted. Further addition of ' phak' again in the sense of apatya is redundant.

Bhānuji Dīkṣita objects the second method employed by Kṣīrasvāmin as follows -the rule kauravya..... the presence of ca includes āsurāyaṇī is unknown, for there is no proof that the letter ca includes such and other words–kauravyamāṇḍūkābhyāṃ ca iti cakārādāsurāyaṇavat ṣphaḥ iti | tadapi na | tvaduktopa-saṃkhyānāprasiddheḥ |

Bhānuji Dīkṣita derives the word as follows–the word dakṣa is ordained vṛddha saṃjñā by the Vārttika vānāmadheyasya and by the rule udīcāṃ vṛddhādagotrāt, the suffix phiñ is ordained and by gaurāditvāt the feminine case ending ṅīṣ is employed to derive the form dākṣāyaṇī.

In this context, it is interesting to note that Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa in his Prakriyāsarvasva (4. 1. 99) derives the word dvaipāyana denonting Vyāsa, by adding the suffix phak which is a gotra suffix by the rule naḍādibhyaḥ phak (4. 1. 99).

He suggests that the gotra pratyaya can be attributed to the son if he performs the duties of the grandson–

pautrādikārikāritvāt putrasyāpi hi gotratā | kvacidāropyate dvīpaputro dvaipāyanastataḥ |

This seems to be a reflection drawn from Vardhamāna's Gaṇaratnamahodadhi (III. 232)–who says that the name dvaipāyana could be derived through upacāra or as apatya–

upacārād dvīpastho munirdvīpaḥ | tasya dvaipāyanaḥ | dvīpe jāto bhavo vā | tadapatyatayā vivakṣita ityeke | dvīpetyevaṃnāmā strītyanye |

Another point to be noted in Prakriyāsarvasva (IV. 97) is the rule–Kauravya māṇḍūkābhyām ca, wherein the letter ' ca' is said to be in anuktasamuccayārtha and there by includes āsurī and dākṣī.

This text omits the Varttika—

āsurerupasaṃkhyānam.

(l) Invocatory verse:

The invocatory verse of Amarakośa^[2] has invited various interpretations from the many commentators on it. Though there is no grammatical derivation invoved in this still for the discussion it has given room to, it is dealt with here.

Especially, commentators like Kṣīrasvāmin and Sarvānanda opine that the verse is adddressed to Jina or Buddha.

Kṣīrasvāmin in his explanation affirms that it is dedicated to the Jina who is endowed with all the 37^[3] virtues–

ānaghā niṣpāpā guṇāḥ kṣāntyādayo bodhipakṣāḥ saptatriṃśat | saḥ ākṣayaḥ ākṣobhyo jāto mārajitvādanantajñānasantāno vā |.........

.... itthaṃ granthārambhe'bhīpsitasiddhihetuṃ jinamanusṛtya śrotṛ protsāhanārthaṃ svapravṛttiprayojanaṃ cābhidheyamādivākyenāha |

Commentators on Amarakośa refute this view of considering Amarasiṃha as a Buddhist; most of them opine that the benedictory verse is addressed to the Ocean or Viṣṇu. The views of these commentators are–

(i) Jātarūpa opines it is addressed to the ocean; and Sarvānanda agrees with this; (ii) Rāyamukuṭa gives that it is a general appellation to Bhagavān or God;

(iii) According to Mallinātha it is addressed to Viṣṇu or Ocean; Liṅgayasūri agrees with Mallinātha; so also does Bhānuji Dīkṣita

The interpretation of Kṣīrasvāmin is refuted by Bhānuji Dīkṣita for he says that there is no evidence in ancient works denoting Amarasiṃha as a Jina and that ardent followers of the Vaidika dharma would not study such a text–

svāmī tu—jinamanusṛtya iti smaraṇa lakṣaṇaṃ maṅgalamāha | tanna | jinavācakapadasyātrādarśanāt sāmānya śabdānāṃ jinalakṣaṇaviśeṣaṇaparatvena vyākhyānasya vaidikānāmanucitatvāt āmarakarturjainatve pramāṇābhāvācca |

According to Bhānuji Dīkṣita , the verse is addressed to a guru or to Viṣṇu.

Anticipating such a criticism Sarvānanda though explains this verse with respect to the ocean, remarks that the adjectives are certainly suggestive of Buddha.

He further adds that the author probably did not expressly mention Buddha for the fear that the non-Buddhists may not read his work–

ātra cānukto'pi śākyalakṣaṇo'rtho jñānadayādibhiḥ spaṣṭaṃ pratīyata iti prasādanāmāyamarthaguṇāḥ |...... bauddhadarśanavidveṣiṇa iha pravṛttirna syādityato'tra buddhapadopādhānaṃ na kṛtaṃ kavinā ||

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

‘Critical Study of the Vārttikas of Kātyāyana’, p. 23

[2]:

yasya jñānadayāsindhoragādhasyānaghāguṇāḥ | sevyatāmakṣayo dhīrāḥ sa śriye cāmṛtāya ca ||

[3]:

These are already discussed under the section on “Philosophy” in Chapter-IV.