Panini Vs Katyayan

I beg to present a different view on the matter of Panini, Katyayana and Patanjali.

The view that Vararuchiattacked Panini and that Patanjali defended Panini against Vararuchi's attackswas most probably started by Theodore Goldstucker. In 1861, Goldstucker's preface to theMaanvasutras was published as a book by itself with the title"Panini: His Place in Sanskrit Literature". In pageNo. 120 of this book, he states "Katyayana, in short, does not leave the impression of an admirer or friend of Panini, but that of an antagonist -- often, too, of an unfair antagonist. In consequence his remarks are attached to those sutras alone which are open to the censure of abstuseness or ambiguity and the contents of which were liable to being completed or modified: he is silent on those which do not admit of crticism or rebuke....I have already mentioned that Patanjali often refutes the strictures of Katyayana and takes the part of Panini; I may now add that, in my opinion, and as a few instances hereafter will show, he sometimes overdoes his defence of Panini, and becomes unjust to Katyayana."

According toF. Kielhorn's book publishedin 1876"Katyayana and Patanjali: their relation to each other and to Panini", Goldstucker was a most influential scholar and his views were adapted widely by European scholars. In that book Kielhorn refutes the views of Goldstucker and shows that Katyayana "dispassionately examines the ruleslaiddown by his master, considers the objections which have actually been or which might be raised to them, is every ready to defend and justify Panini, and corrects, adds to, or abandons the rules propounded by him, only when no other course is left open." (p 120).Kielhorn thinks that Katyayana should be called a follower and judicious admirer of Panini.

The same issue was taken up in Vidyaratna Prof. P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri's "Lectures on Patanjali's Mahabhyashya" published in 1944. He gave a table analysing the review of sutras by Patanjali and Katyayana, which is attached.In his own words (p xxxiv), "...of about 1700 sutras discussed there [in the Mahabhashya], about 450 have no varttikas. Of the remaining 1250 sutras, more than 700 sutras are beautifully explained by the Varttikakara without picking any hole in them. About 10 sutras are found not to be necessary. In the majority of the remaining 540 sutras only additions and corrections or more correctly, changes in form and meaning are made." It is interesting to note from the table that in only 36 sutras does Patanjalidefend Panini against Vararuchi. Vidyaratna also showswith examples the respect Vararuchi had for Panini on one hand (he uses the word Bhagavan to refer to Panini for instance) and the respect that Patanjali had for Vararuchi on the other hand. Reproducingall the instanceshere would not be apt, butacoupleofexamples could be useful.

Let us considerthesutra 1.3.1 . Any self-respecting critic would not fail to notice that it must be and that the additional "va" isincorrect. An European scholar of say,150 years back, would then have immediately jumped to the conclusion that this sutra must have been a vestige from hoary pre-Paninian days of shepherd-scholars who had a word for roots, but not enough knowledge of sandhi rules. What does Vararuchihave to say? This: " s " The same spirit is seen in the commentary (mahabhashya) on the first varttika, " s , " The point here is that siddha has to be interpreted as Nitya, and not "ready" (as in siddham annam). The objector asks why the Varttikakara could not use the word "nitya" itself, if that was the intention. Patanjali's reply is:

" , , "

(Prof. P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri's translation, p54: "For the sake of mangala. The Acharya (Katyayana), eager of reaping the fruit of mangala said 'siddha' for the sake of mangala at the commencement of his work. The works which start with mangala shine well and enable the scholars to become heroic and long-lived and to have their objects fully accomplished."). This sentence also shows the spirit of both Acharya and Sishya. Acharya wants those who readhis works to be long-lived, a virapurusha (I suspect vira can be interpreted differently than'heroic', maybe in theway Srividyopasakas use the word 'vira') andto get his desires fulfilled; later acharyas take up the works of earlier acharyasonly in such positive light.

Another interesting point to note is that Goldstucker most likely did not study the Mahabhashya, except at a few places, before making his comments; Kielhorn himself admits to have studied only the navahnikamat the time ofmaking his comments (he published the other volumes of his Mahabhashya later, after forming this view); Prof. Sastri explicitly states that he studied the entire text.

Thus, while there is no denying that the later exponents indeed disagreedwith Panini, unlike an "attack", such disagreement was resorted to only when no other explanation could be found. We find thisdisagreement by Sishyas continued for at least another thousand years, for instance, the way Suresvaracharya disagrees with Sankaracharya on the question of sannyaasa.

If one were to state the Patanjalicharitam or the story in Kathasaritsagara which makes Panini and Katyayana contemporaries and adversaries, with Panini being the dullard who got the grantha from Parama Siva, the explanation ought to be that the former is meant to eulogise Patanjali, and that the latter is merely a story, not accurate history. At best, it can be said that that particular story-teller [1] thought highly of Katyayana. The text itself has contrary evidence, with Patanjali referring to Panini and Katyayana as Acharya, and Katyayana referring to Panini as Bhagavan. If Katyayana were a contemporary, Panini would surely have "..." type of sutras to accomodate the valid views of Katyayana. Thus, we can take these traditional instances of rivalry as indicative of something else. Also, we have the tradition of prayers like " ...", " ..." which clearly establishes all the three as munis, who have together blessed us with the Sastra.

Therefore, whether we take a textual-analysis approach, or rely on tradition, the view that Katyayana attacked, and Patanjali defended, Panini is incorrect.

Best regards

N. Siva Senani

[1] Kathasaritsagara was based on the Brihatkathaa of Gunadhya, composedat the time of Satavahanas. Most likely Gunadhya was a Southerner; we know from the Mahabhashyathat Katyayana was a Southerner; so, maybe in the South, Katyayana was held in the same esteem as Panini or, even one step higher, for only a higher intellect can "improve" upona great work. This is must my speculation - I have not read this or heard this view anywhere. NSS.