120. BHĀMAHA AND DAŅDIN 117

BHĀMAHA AND DAŅDIN 117

तस्य प्रयोजक: तत्प्रयोजक: Some writers hold that a compound of तृन् with qost does take place (vide Pathak in I. A. 41 pp. 234.) Pāņini's sūtras were commented upon by Jayāditya and Vamana and the commentary is called arfaraT, which in its turn was explained in a huge commentary (in 1149 printed pages) called काशिकाविवरणपजिका or न्यास composed by जिनेन्द्रवुद्धि (published by the ante Research Society at Rajshahi, Bengal). If we can settle which work is the न्यास mentioned by भामह and when that work was composed aHr's date can be settled within narrow limits. Here comes the dispute among such scholars as the late Mr. Trivedi (in I. A. vol. 42 for 1913 p. 158 ff, my paper in J. B. B. R. A. S. for 1909 pp. 91-95, the late Prof. Pathak (in I. A. 1912 p. 232-237, and J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. 23 pp. 18-31, Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. XII. pp. 246 ff. and pp. 372-395) and Mr. R. Narsimhachar (in I. A. vol. 41 p. 91, who refers to a पूज्यपाद, author of a न्यास, that flourished about 500 A.D. according to Mr. Rice and in I. A. vol. 42 p. 204). The propo- sitions clearly laid down by भामह are : (1) Sistas and न्यासकार allow the use of compounds in which the 2nd word is formed with a or 5 and the first is in the genitive; (2) that relying on सूत्रशापक, a word like वृत्रहन्ता has been employed; (3) poets employ such compounds as तद्गमक, relying on पायिनि's 'तत्प्रयोज को gu'. Prof. Pathak takes the 2nd proposition as meaning that वृत्रहन्ता is employed among the people (लोके) and not in the न्यास of जिनेन्द्र (which gives a different example viz. भीष्मः कुरूणां भयशोकहन्ता, v. 1. हर्ता). Mr. Trivedi emphatically asserts that भामह ascribes propositions I and II to the न्यास, but the न्यास does not contain the example वृत्रहन्ता nor does the न्यास of जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि allow the compound of a word formed by तृच् with another noun in the genitive. Therefore, he argues that the न्वास mentioned by भामह is different from जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि's न्यास. From other evidence I have shown that arHg must have flourished before 750 A. D .; therefore the न्यास named by भामह must be one composed about or before 700 A. D. There is no other न्यास (though there are many grammatical works called न्यास) that can be assigned to this date except the न्यास of जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि. So I agree with Prof. Pathak so far. Prof. Pathak shows (I. A. 41 p. 235) that the work of पूज्यपाद to whom Mr. Narsimhachar referred (I. A. 41 p. 91) is not called RTr by anyone. The passages of the =ara on II. 2. 15-16 do show that