It gives me great pleasure to write this Foreword to a book which is the revised form of the thesis on which I had seen Dr. S. D. LADDU at work day after day during the short periods of my stay some years ago at the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Poona, in connection with my work on Bharthari's Vakyapadiya. Occasionally, we used to have talks about his work and about what else he could do after finishing what he had on hand. Here in this work we have the results of an intensive study of a well- delimited subject, namely, the Evolution of the Sanskrit Language from Panini to Patanjali, with reference to the Kyt or Primary Formations delimited to those that are taught in P. 3.1.91 to 3.2.83, that is, in just 143 Sutra-s, together with the Varttika-s of Katyayana and the Mahabhasya of Patanjali on 69 out of them. These Kyt suffixes are to be added to roots in the sense of the agent (karta), but without reference to any aspect of time as connoted by the expressions, bhute. vartamane or bhavisyati.
The very title of the subject raises a big problem. The problem has been stated very clearly by Dr. S. D. JOSHI and Dr. J. A. F. ROODBERGEN in sec. 2 (pp. v-x) of their Introduction to Patanjali's Vyakaraṇa-Mahabhasya: Ayayibhavatat purusahnika. Not only has the problem been stated, but the two scholars have also made their attitude towards the problem quite clear. The problem is: Did Katyayana and Patanjali write in order to bring Panini's grammar uptodate in order to keep abreast of the evolution of the language since Panini's time? They found that in some cases Paņini's rules did not work properly, because Panini had not taken these cases into account, either through oversight or unfamiliarity due to the usage in question belonging to another region or having originated only after Panini.
The present enquiry was carried on by me at the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Poona-6, for the doctoral dissertation that was submitted to the Poona University in July 1966. The work was done under the guidance of Professor Dr. M. A. MEHENDALE. The relevant portion of the Mahabhasya together with the Commentaries of Kaiyața and Nagesa I read with Sastraratnakara Prof. K. A. SIVARAMAKRISHNA SASTRI (then, Sub-Editor at the Sanskrit Dictionary Project of the Institute). I am extremely grateful to these two great scholars for all that I received from them, from Prof. MEHENDALE with his well-known critical scholarship and humane attitude and from Prof. SIVARAMAKRISHNA SASTRI with his rare thoroughness in Traditional learning. Indeed, if anything amounting to accuracy and good reasoning be found in the study that is wholly due to them, the responsibility for the imperftions that there must be in such a study being entirely mine.
During the period of my study I was required to go on long leave from my duties then at the Sanskrit Dictionary Project: for making that possible as well as for the U.G.C. Research Scholarship I could get then, I am grateful to Dr. S. M. KATRE, the then Director of the Institute. I am also thankful to the Librarian of the Institute, Shri V. B. BALSARE, and his staff, for all the benefit I received through their courtesy and promptitude from the priceless collection of the Institute's Library.
Among those who later read the thesis either entirely or in parts, I must mention Acharya V. P. LIMAYE, Dr. S. D. JOSHI (now Professor and Head of the Department of Sanskrit and Prakrit Languages, University of Poona) and Professor Dr. G. V. DEASTHALI: I am indebted to them for some very valuable suggestions they made. Further, it was Professor Dr. A. M. GHATAGE (now Director, Deccan College P.-G. & R.I.) who made some comments relating to my earlier discussion on the Problems faced in the study of evolution and to the earlier Analysis of the Findings at the end.
For privacy concerns, please view our Privacy Policy
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Manage Wishlist