365bet娱乐

18. Date of the Grammarian Bhimasena鈥擝efore A. D. 600 # Dr. S. K. Belvalkar in his section on Dhatupatha' refers to the grammarian Bhimasena in the following extract:- "We next turn our attention to the Madhaviyadhatuvrtti which deals with the same subject and which was written by Madhava or Sayana, the great Vedic Bhasyakara (1350 A. D.). Sayana also mentions numerous workers in the same field whose labours he partly utilised. Among these may be mentioned, as belonging to the Paniniya School, Bhimasena and Maitreyaraksita." The reference to Bhimasena by Sayana about A. D. 1350 enables us to fix A.D. 1300 or so as one terminus to the date of Bhimasena. Aufrecht 2 records numerous MSS of Bhimasena's Dhatupatha I New Indian Antiquary, Vol. II, pp. 108-110. 1. Vide p. 53 of Systems of Sanskrit Grammar, Poona, 1915. On p. 42 Dr. Belvalkar refers to another Bhimasena, the author of a Commentary on Mammata's Kavyaprakasa, composed by him in Samvat 1779 (= A. D. 1722). He is of course different from the grammarian Bhimasena, the author of Dhatupatha. Aufrecht refers to Bhimasena Diksita (CC II, 94) who lived under Ajitasimha of Yodhapura and wrote Kuvalayananda Khandana. One Bhimasena, minister of a King of Nepal wrote a work called Sarvalaksanapustaka. All these name-sakes of the grammarian Bhimasena appear to be different from him. The Ind. Office has a MS of a by - (Vide I. O. Cata. Vol. II, Part II, No. 7353. p. 1205) written merely to explain Prakrta passages ( "samskrte'tipravinanam prakrti- yamajanatam | upakaraya racitam bhimasenena tippanam | " I.O. MS. No. 7730 (p. 1398) called the Hi 35 verses is dated A. D. 1764 and deals with Buddhist mystic formula or dharani . 2. Cata. Catalogorum, I, p. 271-"IO 2832. Br. M. (Addit. 26, 424). L. 2536. Poona 256. Peters 2. 189. Cata. Catalogorum, II, 58- "CU add. 1402." Cata. Catalogorum, III, p.58-"Hpr. 2. 108. Tod. 84." 105

and mentions him as the author of Bhaimi grammar' quoted by Rayamukuta and Padmanabha. As Rayamukuta wrote his commentary in A.D. 1431 Sayana's reference to Bhimasena of about A.D. 1350 is of course the earliest one so far noticed. M. M. Haraprasad Shastri has described three MSS of Bhimasena's Dhatupatha in the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. In his scholarly Preface (P. xxxi) M.M. Shastri observes :- "Every grammarian had to make his own list of verbal roots from the pre-existing indices. Panini's Dhatupatha³ consists of 1944 roots, plus 20 Srauta dhatus which have to be picked up from the Sutras of Panini. The works on roots of the School of Panini have - 1. Ibid. I, 413-"-Dhaturatha. Bhaimi grammar. He is quoted by Ray amukuta and Padmanabha Oxf. 110 b." Padmanabha mentions Bhimasena in his siddhasarasvatadipika (vide Oxford 110 b) represented by a MS dated Saka 1631 = A. D. 1709. There are three MSS of Bhimasena's Dhatupatha in the Govt. MSS Library at the B. O. R. Institute viz. No. 220 of 1892-95, No. 94 of A 1883-84 and No. 327 of A 1881-82. (These have been described by Dr. Belvalkar on pp. 163 to 166 of his Descriptive Catalogue of Grammar MSS, Vol. II, Part I (B. O. R. Institute, Poona, 1938). Describing MS No. 220 of 1892-95 (which is dated Samvat 1696 = A. D. 1639) Dr. Belvalkar observes :- "The list of roots is said to be the work of Panini while His said to have supplied their meaning. This is an elderly writer and is credited with the authorship of a distinct commentary called pradipa on this same dhatupatha ." - 2. Catalogue of Vyakarana Manuscripts, Vol. VI, Calcutta, 1931, pp. 71-72 Nos. 4351, 4352, 4353. The last of these three MSS is dated Samvat 1743 = A. D. 1687. It was copied by one Visvanatha, of the Surname Pattavardhana. Aufrecht (CC I, 416) refers to Haft grammar as follows:- "I grammar, by Bhimasena, Oppert 3334, 4236, II, 2774." 3. Winternitz in his Geschichte der ind. Litteratur, III (1920) deals with the Dhatupathas of Panini, Katantra, Candra, Hema candra, Vopadeva as also Pali Dhatupatha but I find no reference to Bhimasena in the Index to this volume. He, however, refers to the Dhatupradipa of Maitreyaraksita (p. 395). In "Materialien zum Dhatupatha," Bruno Liebich, Heidelberg, 1921, (Carl Winters) I find no mention of Bhimasena's Dhatupatha.

many commentaries....... Numbers 4351 to 53 are by Bhimasena and 4354 is by Maitreya-raksita one of the Buddhist Commentators of Panini. It is later than Bhimasena. Maitreya flourished according to Srisa Babu about 1100 A. D. The greatest work on Sanskrit roots of this school is by the well-known Madhavacarya. It has been published in the Mysore Sanskrit Series. It is of an encyclopadic character. Babu Srisa Candra has written a commentary on the Dhatupradipa by Maitreya in his edition published by the Varendra Research Society." If Bhimasena is earlier' than Maitreya-raksita (who flourished about A. D. 1100) the date of our Bhimasena is pushed back by 250 years from A. D. 1350, the date of Sayana, who refers to him as stated by Dr. Belvalkar. We have now to see if we can push back the date of Bhimasena still further backwards from A. D. 1100. The evidence on the strength of which I propose to push back Bhimasena's date by at least 500 years from A. D. 1100, the date of Maitreya-raksita is as follows:The Tattvarthadhigamasutra, a treatise on the fundamental principles of Jainism was composed by Umasvati with his self-composed commentary (Svopajnabhasya) "between the 1 st and the 4 th centuries of the Vikrama era" according to Prof. H. R. Kapadia³ or between 1 and 85 A.D. according to Satis Chandra Vidyabhushan.* Sidhasenagani composed a commentary on Umasvati's Sutra and bhasya. In this voluminous commentary he refers to many previous Suris. In his discussion of Siddhasena's date Prof. Kapadia 1. M. M. H. P. Shastri (in his description of MS 4354 dated Saka 1490 A. D. 1568) states that Dhatupradipa of Maitreya = "follows Bhimasena" (p. 73). 2. Ed. by Prof. H. R. Kapadia with Siddhasenagani's commentary (Devachand Lalbhai J. P. Fund Series, No. 76), 1930-Part II (Chap. VI to X). 3. Ibid, p. 42. 4. History of Mediaeval School of Indian Logic, p. 8. 5. Vide pp. 100-101 and 123 of Prof. Kapadia's edition of T. Sutra. Prof. Kapadia attempts an identification of some of the Suris etc. (pp. 54-65 of Introduction) mentioned by Siddhasena. I shall here note for reference their names only as found on p. 123 :- sakalya, baskala, kuthumi, satyamugri, ranayana, katha, madhyandina, moda, pippalada, badarayana, svistakrd anikatyayana, jaimini, vasu, marici, kumara, kapila, luka, gargya, vyaghrabhuti, vadvali, mathara, maudgalyayana, kokula, kantheviddhi, kausika, harismasru, mandhanika, romaka, harita, munda, asvalayana, vasistha, parasara, jatukarna, valmiki, romaharsani, satya- datta, ilaputra, aupamanya, candradatta, dharmakirti (p. 397 of Part I) etc.

states that "Siddhasena's date does not go ahead of the 7 th century" (p. 64 of Introduction). Satischandra Vidyabhushan assigns Siddasena to about 600 A. D. (Vide p. 182 of History of Indian Logic). In view of this early date for Siddhasena the following reference tod enables us to fix A. D. 600 or so as one terminus to Bhimasena's date:Pages 254-Umasvati's bhasya reads:- "citi sajnanavisuddhayoh dhatuh | tasya cittamiti bhavati nisthantamaunadikam ca " Siddhasena comments: citi sajnanavisuddhayordhaturityadi | bhimasenaparato'nyaivaiyakaranairathamdvaye pathito dhatuh sajnane visuddhau ca | iha visudvayarthasya saha sabjnanena grahanam | athavanekartha dhatavah iti sanjnane pathito visuddhavapi vartate | bhasyakrta copayujyamanamevarthamabhi- sandhaya visuddhirapi pathita tasya cittamiti rupam bhavati nisthantamaunadikam ca cetatiti vittam visuddha yatityarthah | " I believe the reference in the above extract to and his dhatupatha contained in the expression "bhimasenatparato'nyaivaiyakaranairatham- dvaye pathito dhatuh " is quite explicit and it needs no elaborate proof for establishing the identity of this bhimasena with bhimasena, the author of the followed by Maitreyaraksita in A. D. 1100 and referred to by Sayana about A. D. 1350 as already pointed out in this paper. I have not searched for other references to Bhimasena in Siddhasena's voluminous commentary as such search is rendered quite difficult in the absence of any index to proper names accompanying Prof. Kapadia's edition. We know practically nothing about this grammarian but as he has been now proved to be earlier than A. D. 600 or so on account of Siddhasena's reference to him scholars interested in the history of Sanskrit grammar will do well to gather more information about him than what they have gathered and recorded so far.