1848.] The most ancient Grammar of the Vedas. 9 



Durga explains this passage perfectly satisfactorily : sarvesha caranana 

 sarva-cakhantarana ity arthe :— Kim : parshadani svacarana parshady 

 eva jaiopraticakha iriyatam eva pacla — vagraha pragrihya krama sanhita 

 svara lrkshanam uchyate tanimani parshadani paticakhyanity artha. — 

 That carana can mean nothing else but school is clearly explained in 

 Gagaddhara's commentary (MS. of the E. I. H. fol. 6. b.) to Mala- 

 timadhava, p. I. 1, 2, of the Calcutta Edition ; " carana guruva iti i ca- 

 rana-cabda : cakha viceshadhyayana paraikata pannagana sangha vaci 

 (tatra samuhe tegurava kriya kritva vedadhyapitra : I sagururja : kriya 

 kritva vedam asmai pagachatita smriti : I gadva caranai : Kalapa, dibhir 

 gurava mahanta : i It is of exactly the same meaning in Panini II. 4, 3, 

 and VI. 3, 86,* and thence we see that before that grammarian, there 

 were already many more schools in existence. 



Parshada means, according to Durga' s explanation, a book of instruc- 

 tion treating on the grammatical rules, adopted as a guide by one or 

 the other of these schools, and Praticakhya must be considered as 

 an adjective which marks the peculiar differences of the Parshada. 

 From this alone we might conclude that our Praticakhyas are nothing 

 else but the Parshada of the cakha. Add to this that the quota- 

 tion of Yaska, " pada-prakriti : sahita" is really taken from Pra- 

 tic, I. pat. 2. 1, and that also the remaining Praticakyas contain that 

 doctrine of the connection of the pada with the Sanhita. Prat. III. 

 1. f. 32. a. atha sahisayam ekapranabhave I yathayuktad vidhi: Sa. 

 prapriti i similarly Prat. II. 1. f. 16. b. 3. f. 25. b. Besides this the 

 first Praticakhya bears the title parshada, and is mentioned in the 

 introduction as such : and lastly, Uvata remarks in a commentary to 

 the second Praticakhya (fol. 41. b.) to a Sutra, which treats of the 

 sounds ri and lri, that the same are considered in other parshadas, as 



* In the first passage (II. 4, 3,) it appears to me, that that the Sutra was not correct- 

 ly understood by the commentators, and after them by " Bbhthlingk." In my opinion 

 anuvade means " in the citation," and the Sutra means to say, that when the quotation of 

 the opinion, &c. of two schools is given, both names are as Dvandva, and in the singular 

 number. Considered in this point of view, Sutra has a meaning, and one can explain the 

 singular, while according to the commentators, one does not know why the plural is not 

 as correct here as in the other case. I give here an example from Pratic 111. fol. 46, 

 a " dvav Uttamolloujasya repham. Both (visarga the anticedent of repha and kepha) 

 become repha according to the opinion of the Uttania and Uttauja." That Pan. I, 3, 

 49, in his commentary on the root vad with ant, has it in quite another sense, and 

 adduces quite a similar example, can be no proof of the above. 



C 



