World Sanskrit Conference (WSC) (17th : 2018)

Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of the Aṣṭādhyāyī Krama (AK) and the Prakriyā Krama… Joshi, Sanhita L.; Kulkarni, Malhar A. 2019

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


70440-Joshi_S_et_al_Tracing_underpinning_2019.pdf [ 786.53kB ]
JSON: 70440-1.0391833.json
JSON-LD: 70440-1.0391833-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 70440-1.0391833-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 70440-1.0391833-rdf.json
Turtle: 70440-1.0391833-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 70440-1.0391833-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 70440-1.0391833-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of the 
Aṣṭādhyāyī Krama (AK) and the Prakriyā Krama (PK) Sanhita L. Joshi and Malhar A. Kulkarni Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 17: Sanskrit Pedagogy.  Section Convenor: Sadananda Das
General Editor: Adheesh Sathaye Published by the Department of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia, on behalf of the International Association for Sanskrit Studies. DOI: 10.14288/1.0391833.
URI: Suggested Citation Format: MLA:
Joshi, Sanhita L and Malhar A. Kulkarni. “Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of the Aṣṭādhyāyī Krama (AK) and the Prakriyā Krama (PK).” Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 17: Sanskrit Pedagogy. Edited by Sadananda Das, 2019. DOI: 10.14288/1.0391833. APA:
Joshi, S. L. & M. A. Kulkarni. (2019). Tracing the underpinning arguments of the dichotomy of the Aṣṭādhyāyī Krama (AK) and the Prakriyā Krama (PK). In S. Das (Ed.) Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 17: Sanskrit Pedagogy. DOI: 10.14288/1.0391833. Chicago:
Joshi, Sanhita L. and Malhar A. Kulkarni. 2019. “Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of the Aṣṭādhyāyī Krama (AK) and the Prakriyā Krama (PK).” In Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 17: Sanskrit Pedagogy, edited by Sadananda Das. DOI: 10.14288/1.0391833. Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, July 9-13, 2018 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaCopyright © 2019 by the author. Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).   17TH    WORLD   SANSKRIT  CONFERENCEVANCOUVER, CANADA • JULY 9-13, 2018वैधुसव ्मकबुंटुकअ ारा यसं तृा यनसमवायःINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SANSKRIT STUDIES THE 17TH WORLD SANSKRIT CONFERENCE, VANCOUVER, CANADA, JULY 9-13, 2018 Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of the Aṣṭādhyāyī Krama (AK) and the Prakriyā Krama (PK) Sanhita L. Joshi Dept. of Sanskrit & Lexicography, 
Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute, Pune, Maharashtra, India. Malhar A. Kulkarni Dept. of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, 
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. Abstract In the pedagogy of Pāṇinian grammar, two methods of teaching the Aṣṭādhyāyī are quite popular: i) the Aṣṭādhyāyī Krama (AK) in which the sūtras in the Aṣṭā-dhyāyī are taught in the very order in which they appear, and ii) the Prakriyā Krama (PK) in which the sūtras are rearranged thematically with the prakriyā (derivation) of wordforms as its focal point. With the advent of the “Prakriyā Age” (12th century, C.E.), many prakriyā texts were composed, among which the Vaiyākaraṇa Siddhānta Kaumudī received unprecedented popularity. The latter half of the 19th century witnessed the voices of revolt against these prakriyā texts, especially against the Vaiyākaraṇa Siddhānta Kaumudī. This revolt assumed the form of a dichotomy between the AK and the PK. It is observed that the propo-nents of the AK have extensively written on this topic and have in fact staunchly attacked the PK. Among these resources against the PK method, a book called Siddhānta Kaumudī Kī Antyeṣṭī (1937) deserves a significant place and a serious at-tention. For, it documents the underpinning inroads into the Vaiyākaraṇa Sid-dhānta Kaumudī in the early years of 20th century, which were later elaborated in the form of cardinal arguments in the conflict between the AK and PK methods. This paper first presents the narrative behind the evolution of the AK and the PK methods and the role of this book in it. It further elaborately enumerates the arguments proposed in this book against the Vaiyākaraṇa Siddhānta Kaumudī and critically analyzes them. Finally, it tries to trace the underpinnings of the di-Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13 2018, Section 17: Sanskrit Pedagogy, edited by Sadananda Das, 2019. DOI: 10.14288/1.0391833. JOSHI & KULKARNI 2chotomy of the AK and the PK methods and popular trends in the pedagogy of Pāṇinian grammar as underlined in this book.  Keywords: Aṣṭādhyāyī, Pāṇini, Sanskrit Pedagogy, Aṣṭādhyāyī Krama, Prakriyā Kra-ma, Vaiyākaraṇa Siddhānta Kaumudī. 1. Introduction The history of every discipline witnesses shifts in its pedagogical paradigm from time to time. The pedagogy of Pāṇinian grammar is no exception. Among such changed pedagogical paradigms in the sphere of Pāṇinian grammar, the most significant is the advent of the “Prakriyā Age” in 12th century, C.E. During this period (12th-17th centuries),  several rearranged commentaries on the Aṣṭād1 -hyāyī (A) were composed which were essentially thematic in their character and were exclusively focussed on the prakriyā (“derivation”) of word forms. The piv-otal prakriyā texts are the Rūpāvatāra (Rūp), the Prakriyā Kaumudī (PrK), the Vaiyākaraṇa Siddhānta Kaumudī (VSK), the Laghu Siddhānta Kaumudī (LSK). Among these, the VSK received unprecedented popularity and still heads these prakriyā texts. However, in the 19th century, the increasing popularity of prakriyā texts agitated a set of grammarians who initiated two distinct and debating methods of learning the A, called the Aṣṭādhyāyī Krama (AK) and the Prakriyā Krama (PK) in the pedagogy of Pāṇinian grammar. The followers of the AK method mounted a scathing attack on the PK method through their teachings and writings. Among such literature, a book written by Rājendranātha Śāstrī and called Siddhānta Kaumudī Kī Antyeṣṭī (SKA) gives an exhaustive critique of the VSK. Published in 1937, the SKA is one of the oldest sources to understand this conflict between the AK and the PK methods and hence it deserves serious scrutiny. The present paper focuses on examining the arguments against the VSK enumerated in the SKA. The SKA documents the underpinning inroads into the Vaiyākaraṇa Siddhānta Kaumudī in the early years of 20th century, which later as-sumed the form of cardinal arguments in the conflict between the AK and the PK methods.  Firstly, this paper presents the narrative behind the emergence of this 2conflict between the AK and the PK methods and tries to understand the role of  From the composition of the Rūp (around 1140 C.E.) till that of the LSK in the 17th century.1 A detailed account of this interaction between these methods and the critical appraisal 2of the arguments and the defense proposed by the followers of the AK and PK methods respectively are presented in Joshi and Kulkarni forthcoming. Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of AK and PK 3the SKA in the same. This is followed by the study of all major arguments pro-posed by the SKA against the VSK which are primary to the arguments involved in the dichotomy of the AK and the PK methods and their critical appraisal. Fi-nally, it remarks on the substantiality and the relevance of these arguments First, let us briefly understand the nature of the AK and the PK. The method in which the sūtras from the A are taught in the same order as enumer-ated in the Aṣṭādhyāyī Sūtrapāṭha (ASP) is the AK method. This method involves the study of the A and of the Vyākaraṇa Mahābhāṣya (VMB). The memorization of the ASP is regarded as prerequisite in this method. In contrast, the method in which the sūtras are arranged thematically to explain different topics of grammar is the PK method. Texts like the PrK, the VSK, and the LSK are the texts of the PK method. Let us understand the AK and the PK methods respectively through the example of the sūtra “ye vibhāṣā” (A. 6.4.43).   Figure 1. The position of the sūtra A. 6.4.43 in the ASP. In the above figure, the position of the sūtra “ye vibhāṣā” in the ASP is indi-cated in a box. The words which are to be carried forward in the sūtra A. 6.4.43 in the form of anuvṛtti are shown in the boxes and with the arrows. While under-standing the meaning of this sūtra in this order, the adhikāra aṅgasya from the sūtra “aṅgasya” (A. 6.4.1), the anuvṛtti of the words kṅiti from the sūtra A. 6.4.37, “āt” from the sūtra A. 6.4.41, and janasanakhanāṃ from the sūtra A. 6.4.42 are in the front of the student and hence can be easily construed. Thus, we understand AKA. 6.4.37  anudāttopadeśa-vanatitanotyā … kṅiti    …………    …………  A. 6.4.41 viḍvanoranunāsikasyāt A. 6.4.42 jana-sana-khanāṃ sañjahaloḥ A. 6.4.43 ye vibhāṣā JOSHI & KULKARNI 4the meaning of the sūtra in the AK method through the very order of these sū-tras in the ASP. Figure 2. Understanding the sūtra A. 6.4.43 through the VSK.  On the other hand, the sūtra “ye vibhāṣā” (A. 6.4.43) is stated in the VSK while describing the forms of the root “ṣaṇa saṃbhaktau” (bhvādi root, Dhātupāṭha 464). The VSK vṛtti explains this sūtra as janasanakhanāṃ ātvaṃ vā syādyādau kṅiti. Now, a student while reading this does not understand that from where do the words like janasanakhanāṃ, ātvaṃ, and kṅiti come in this vṛtti as there are only two words in the sūtra, ye and vibhāṣā. Hence, he memorizes and follows the stated meaning in the VSK. This is the pivotal difference between these two methods. The AK method, by following the very order of the sūtras as stated in the ASP enables a student to recollect the anuvṛtti and adhikāra, and thus ac-quaints him with the structure of the ASP. But the PK (and especially the VSK) loses these aspects of the ASP. This is one of the prime charges against the VSK discussed by the AK followers in general and by the book SKA in particular. Be-fore proceeding towards the arguments stated by the SKA against the VSK, let us trace the evolution of the conflict between the AK and the PK method which would help in efficiently understand its context.  2. Evolution of the dichotomy of the AK and the PK methods Circumstantial inevitabilities such as the cessation of Sanskrit as a spoken lan-guage, increasing popularity of non-Pāṇinian grammars like the Kātantra, Cān-PK2319  ye vibhāṣā (6-4-43)     jana-sana-khanāṃ   ātvaṃ  vā syāt yādau  kṅiti  |         sāyāt - sanyāt | ? ? ? Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of AK and PK 5dra, Haima, etc., the attitude towards simplification, and the hunt for a navya (innovative) approach paved a new pathway, in the form of prakriyā texts, in the pedagogy of Pāṇinian grammar (Laddu 1987: 598). As a result, this period flour-ished with the new experiments in terms of thematic consolidation of rules of the A with the derivation of wordforms as the focal point. Among these texts, the VSK of Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita, modelled (more sophistically) on the PrK of Rāmacandra Śeṣa reigned in the pedagogy of the time, and still enjoys the unparallel position in the syllabus of all institutions wherever Sanskrit grammar is taught and learned.   However, the 19th century witnessed the voices of revolt against the VSK and its prakriyā structure.  Swāmī Virajānanda (respectfully called Daṇḍījī), a 3renowned prajñācakṣu (blind) grammarian from Mathura was instrumental in this. Bhīmasena Śāstrī states in his biography of Daṇḍījī (1959: 3, 8, 10, 26) that he (Daṇḍījī), himself, a student of the VSK, Śekhara, Sāraswata Vyākaraṇa used to teach these texts in his various academic sojourns throughout North India. Bhīmasena Śāstrī mentions that Daṇḍījī also learned and memorized some chapters from the ASP from his teacher Swāmī Purnānanda (1959: 8). Once, hav-ing heard the chanting of the ASP with corrupt words and incorrect pronuncia-tion from a nearby Brahmin, he had developed a strong aversion towards the texts like the VSK, Śekhara, etc. (Bhīmasena Śāstrī 1959: 50). He declared the fol-lowing dictum: aṣṭādhyāyīmahābhāṣye dve vyākaraṇapustake|
tato 'nyat pustakaṃ yattu tatsarvaṃ dhūrtaceṣṭitam|| (Bhīmasena Śāstrī 1959: 68). There are only two texts of Vyākaraṇa śāstra, the A and the VMB. 
Texts other than these are just an act of a deceiver. Daṇḍījī further delineated the “kātri” – i.e. three kutsita (despicable) things that every student of grammar should censure (Bhīmasena Śāstrī 1959: 66):  i) People like Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita, who interrupted the order in the A. ii) Their texts.  Earlier, in the 17th Century C.E., Bhaṭṭoji was strongly criticized by Jagannātha Paṇḍita 3and others for rejecting views of his own guru, Śeṣa Kṛṣṇa (who wrote a commentary called Prakriyā Prakāśa on the PrK) and hence being disloyal (Bali 1976: 30). The SKA also criticizes him on this pretext (Śāstrī 1937: 12). This allegation of disloyality to own teacher against Bhaṭṭoji constitutes one of the arguments against the VSK along with it being aśuddha and anārṣa. JOSHI & KULKARNI 6iii) Those who learn, teach, and write commentaries on such texts. The cardinal issue in this criticism was the existence of aśuddha, i.e., im-pure/incorrect words in these texts. Hence, he declared all such man-made texts as anārṣa. He steadfastly propagated the study of ārṣa texts – i.e., texts composed by the ṛṣis (seers) alone as the only solution to restore the glory of vaidika religion and Āryāvarta (India).   4 This mission was zealously carried forward by Swāmī Dayānanda Saras-vatī, the founder of Ārya Samāja, in reverential obedience to his guru, Daṇḍījī. The same thought is observed to be inculcated in the philosophy of Ārya Samāja.  5Hence, the compositions of commentaries on the ārṣa texts and critically editing them is still considered as one of principal activities of Ārya Samāja.   6At this point of time, the distinct nomenclatures of the AK and the PK giv-en to these methods are evidently absent. However, the rigorous efforts to abol-ish the study of the VSK, as well as its commentaries and abridgments, and to propagate the study of A in its original order were certainly going on. The most significant evidence of this is Siddhānta Kaumudī Kī Antyeṣṭī by Rājendranātha Śāstrī, published by Dayānanda Sevā Saṅgha (Delhi) in 1937.  7The word antyeṣṭī, i.e. last rites (done after the death of man) in the title verily suggests that this book is devoted to complete elimination of the VSK from Pāṇinian pedagogy. This book looks like a “charge-sheet” against the VSK in which the drawbacks of the VSK (with specific examples) are elaborated, thus making it noteworthy. It also presents another method of teaching and learning the A, which follows the order of sūtras, step-by-step, as per the ASP (Śāstrī 1937: 23-29). The testimonials of thirteen different scholars are provided in support of the arguments. It is to be noted that no distinct names to these methods are as- Bhīmasena Śāstrī presents a letter of Swāmī Virajānanda, addressed to the king of 4Jaipur, Mahārāja Rāmasingh, asking him to arrange a Sārvabhauma Sabhā which will enable to eliminate the study of the VSK and other texts from the pedagogy and estab-lish the order of the A as the only method to learn Pāṇinian grammar (Śāstrī 1959: 72). The third samullāsa of Swāmī Dayānand’s Satyārtha Prakāśa explains the significance of 5ārṣa texts and prescribes a list of ārṣa texts which are to be studied by every Ārya Samā-ja follower (Sarasvatī 2008: 61-65). Swāmī Dayānanda directed this path by writing commentaries on all four Vedas and the A.6 The PDF copy of this book records its date of publication as Vikrama Saṃvat 1994, which 7corresponds to the Gregorian year 1937. Hence, the references to this book are cited with the year 1937. Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of AK and PK 7signed in the SKA. It is in the prologue to his Prathamāvṛtti to the A that the no-table grammarian Brahmadatta Jijñāsu, a foremost follower of the Ārya Samāja, assigns the specific nomenclatures of “AK” and “PK” to these distinct methods.   8The arguments against the PK methods, especially against the VSK in Ji-jñāsu’s Prathamāvṛtti, and in later writings of scholars like Yudhiṣṭhira Mīmāṃsaka, Vijayapāla Vidyāvāridhi, Jayaśaṅkara Lāla Tripāthī, and Satyakāma Varmā can be traced back to the issues discussed in the SKA. Let us go through the arguments proposed by the SKA one by one.  3. Arguments against the VSK in the SKA The book SKA facilitates the cardinal arguments on the basis of which we ob-serve the later AK proponents shaped this dichotomy. These arguments are clas-sified in the following five sections in the book. A. Those revolving around the changed krama (order) of the rules (10 in number); B. Those revolving around issues other than krama of the rules (29 in number); C. Those instances in the VSK which are contradictory to the statements in the VMB (20 in number); D. Those examples having the insufficient explanation of a sūtra in the VSK (2 in number); E. Those instances having the ambiguities in the meaning of sūtras in the VSK (19 in number).  At places, these arguments from the above sections have become overlap-ping and reiterative. To avoid this and to cover all pivotal issues, we have classified them into two broad classes, arguments revolving around the change in the krama (order) of sūtra and those other than the change in the krama of the sūtras. Arguments occurring in the testimonials of the 13 scholars given in the SKA, and those dispersed in the text, are also appended in these classes. Hence, the order of these arguments as stated in the SKA is not followed here. First, let  This method of doing the revision of the meanings of the rules is also recommended in 8the book SKA where the steps of studying the A are well-elaborated (Śāstrī 1937: 23-28). Thus, this style of studying the A in its very order by doing a prathamāvṛtti (a first revi-sion) can be inferred to be developed during the early years of 20th century. It gained its concrete shape in the form of a 3-volume book by Jijñāsu. JOSHI & KULKARNI 8us go through the arguments stated in the SKA which revolve around the change in the order of sūtras.  A.  Arguments revolving around the change in the krama (order) of sūtras It is well-known that the krama of the sūtras in the ASP is changed in the prakriyā texts, especially the PrK and the VSK (and its abridgments). According to the SKA, the issue of changed order is a very fundamental one that has in-curred several setbacks in the VSK. This issue also forms as the cardinal one in the arguments by the later AK followers. The SKA lists the following problems.  A1. Loss of anuvṛtti and adhikāra. The very change in the order of sūtras led to loss of anuvṛtti and ad-hikāra, those essential techniques to the A. The SKA argues (p. 13, 14, pts. 3, 5) that the important adhikāras like asiddhavat atra ābhāt (A. 6.4.22), pūrvatrāsiddham (A.8.2.1), pratyayaḥ, (A. 3.1.1), kṛdatiṅ (A. 3.1.91) are lost due to the changed order of the rules.  It further gives an instance (p. 51) 9where the VSK notes an incorrect anuvṛtti of the word garhā (from the rule garhāyāṃ laḍapi jātyoḥ A. 3.3.142) in the sūtra kiṅkilāstyartheṣu lṛṭ (A. 3.3.146).  Also, the VSK does not state the prohibition of anuvṛtti. (p. 40, 10pt. 8) It introduces the apakarṣa at improper places (p. 47, pt. 20).  The 11later AK followers also argue that several issues regarding the exact lim-it/scope of anuvṛtti and adhikāra occur, making the comprehension of the sūtras complex. (See Jijñāsu 2011, “Introduction”). A2. Undue memorization of vṛtti, paribhāṣās, examples, instead of sūtras. The SKA argues that in the course of time, the importance of sūtras is observed to be declined and the VSK vṛtti was given undue importance (p. 14, pt. 7). It further states that the memorization of vṛtti resulted in memorization of paribhāṣās like vipratiṣedhe paraṃ kāryam (A. 1.4.2), for which the fundamental knowledge of the structure of the A in general and that of the ekasaṃjñādhikāra (ākaḍārādekā saṃjñā A. 1.4.1) is neces-sary (p. 14, pt. 6). This is not gained in the VSK method. The SKA states that due to this loss in the order of the sūtras in the VSK, the students  Hereafter, “pt.” refers to the point number of the discussed issue in the book.9 anavakḷptyamarṣayor ity etat garhāyāṃ ceti yāvad anuvartate |10 Apakarṣa: “drawing back a word or words from a succeeding rule of grammar to the 11preceding one” (Abhyankar and Shukla 1986: 32). Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of AK and PK 9are left with the mugging up of the examples of every sūtra, instead of understanding the actual application of the sūtras in the examples (p. 13, pts. 2, 4). The later AK proponents also staunchly oppose this unneces-sary memorization of the VSK. (See Viśwanātha Śāstrī 1856: 13). A3. No importance to vaidika sūtras. The SKA argues that due to this changed order in the VSK, the students remain unaware of the leṭ lakāra (which is exclusively used in the Vedas) (p. 14, pt. 8). Also, it states that the students are even ignorant about the svara (accent) of laukika (profane) examples (p. 14, pt. 9). The question of accent in vaidika examples thus becomes beyond consideration. This is-sue resonates in the arguments of the later AK followers time and again. (See Varmā 1971: 332). A4. Loss in faculty of ūha. This book states that (p. 14, pt. 7) due to change in the order of the sūtras and unnecessary memorization of the VSK vṛtti and examples, the facul-ty of ūha – that is, the deliberation upon a certain topic – was lost. The students are unable to apply the sūtras in the case of other examples ex-cept for standard ones (p. 9). This faculty should be cultivated with con-tinuous question-and-answer sessions on the undertaken topic (p. 26). However, the efficiency to discuss and deliberate upon various topics is reduced in the VSK. The same drawback is repeated by later AK propo-nents. (See Jijñāsu 2011: 33). These are the main drawbacks which the students of the VSK faced, due to the loss of the original order of the rules from the ASP. Now let us briefly under-stand the arguments related to issues other than krama (order) of the rules. B. Arguments other than the change in the krama (order) of sūtras The arguments which discuss the setbacks other than the change in the krama (order) of the sūtra and which are faced by the VSK students are summed up in the following five headings. B1. Imagination of new sūtras, vārtikas, pratyāhāra, kārikās, etc. The SKA strongly criticizes the VSK for inventing “ra pratyāhāra,” attest-ing the authority of pratyāhārasūtras to Māheśvara, (which are neither stated by Pāṇini nor by Patañjali) (p. 15, pt. 2). It further argues that in  JOSHI & KULKARNI 10the sūtra “sā'smin paurṇamāsīti” (A. 4.2.21), the word ‘saṃjñāyām’ has been wrongly added in the VSK (p. 16, pt. 10).  The SKA also condemns the VSK for newly composing aniṭ kārikās (verses enlisting those roots, which are not added with the iṭ augment), which are not found in the VMB (p. 15, pt. 3).  Hence, such imagined incorpo12 -rations of kārikā, pratyāhāra, etc. do not make the VSK credible source to learn the A. B2. Loss in the appendices of the A. The SKA notes that (p. 15, pt. 8), the avataraṇikā (introductory portion) in the Dhātupāṭha does not contain the accents of the verbal roots such as bhū sattāyām udāttāḥ udāttetaḥ parasmaibhāṣāḥ. It further states that (p. 15,18, pts. 4, 25) a section of the uṇādi-sūtras (748 in number) is not commented and treated as rūḍhyartha (“conventional”) but yaugika (“der-ivational”). Many gaṇas in the Gaṇapāṭha are half-enumerated and are considered as akṛtigaṇa (p. 17, pt. 16). Hence, even though the VSK pro-vides the appendices of the ASP, it remains incomplete and faulty. B3. Inappropriate examples. The SKA argues that the VSK does not give the appropriate examples and counterexamples (p. 17, pt. 18). It further states that the VSK also changes the correct position of examples under the sūtras (p. 17, pt. 17). It states “viti” as an optional form to “ūm̐ iti” under the sūtra ūm̐ (A. 1.1.18) which states no “option” at all (p. 42). This contradicts with the VMB, too. Bhaṭṭoji is also censured for giving coarse and disrespectful examples like “gopī smarāt kṛṣṇāya ślāghate” (p. 15, pt. 1). Such incorrect examples, given in the VSK create confusion in the mind of students. B4. Variants in the sūtras. The SKA notes that the VSK purposely changed the text of Vārtikas, paribhāṣās, etc. (p. 18, pt. 27). It states an example of the word śreṇikṛtāḥ which is noted with both short and long i in the text of the VSK, thus creating confusion. Similarly, the example of ūm̐ iti and viti are not print-ed in many VSK texts (p. 16, pt. 11). Such variant readings in the VSK cre-ate trouble in understanding the purport of a Pāṇinian  sūtra.   ūdṛdantairyautirukṣṇuśīñṇsnunukṣuśviḍīṅśribhiḥ vṛṅvṛñbhyāṃ ca vinaikāco'janteṣu nihatāḥ 12smṛtāḥ … || (The VSK on ekāca anupadeśe'nudāttāt A.7.2.10). Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of AK and PK 11B5. Ambiguities in the interpretation and the explanation of the sūtras.  The SKA questions the purport of VSK vrtti on the sūtra alo'ntyasya (A. 1.1.52), which reads that “ṣaṣṭhīnirdiṣṭa antyasya ala ādeśaḥ syāt” (p. 38, pt. 4). This means that “an ādeśa (replacement) is stated in the ṣaṣṭhī (i.e. genitive case).” Ideally, the word which gets replaced should be stated in the genitive case and not the ādeśa. The SKA also notes that the vṛtti of some sūtras are half-explained (p. 16, pt. 13). The SKA also states that the Vārtika stating “an option” under the sūtra, hetuhetumatorliṅ (A. 3.3.156)  is wrongly added in the VSK vṛtti (p. 50).  13 14Also, the sūtras like nīcairanudātaḥ (A. 1.2.30), anekālśitsarvasya (A. 1.1.55) are paraphrased as “iti spaṣṭam” (p. 59). The VSK vṛtti of adhikaraṇavācinaśca (A. 2.3.68) is given as “ktasya yoge ṣaṣṭhī syāt |” However, this is incomplete as ktasya is unable to convey the sense of adhikaraṇa (p. 52). Similar is the incomplete sūtravṛtti of ad-hikaraṇavācinā ca (A. 2.2.13) (p. 53).  There are several other examples of 15such ambiguities which a student faces while understanding the inter-pretation of the sūtras from the VSK.  The SKA argues that with all these difficulties it would take more than twelve years for a student to master the Pāṇinian grammar. Later AK followers also believed that the study through the PK method is extremely lengthy, time-consuming, and thus should be avoided (see Jijñāsu 2011: 28, 46). These are pri-mary arguments which serve as the basis for the arguments proposed by the AK followers in the debate between the AK and the PK methods in the latter half of the 20th century. Now let us critically analyze these arguments one by one to see their substantiality as the founding arguments in the conflict between the AK and the PK methods.   hetuhetumatorliṅ vā | (VMB, p. 164).13 VSK on A. 3.3.156: vā syāt | kṛṣṇaṃ namec cet sukhaṃ yāyāt kṛṣṇaṃ naṃsyati cet sukhaṃ 14yāsyati || VSK on A. 2.2.13 reads “ktena ṣaṣṭhī na samasyate||” The SKA argues that (p. 53) the word 15adhikaraṇavācinā does not come in the sūtra-vṛtti. Hence, the sense of the suffix kta remains ambiguous. JOSHI & KULKARNI 124. Critical appraisal of the arguments in the SKA In this section, all the arguments proposed in the SKA are analysed in the same order as in the last section. A. Arguments revolving around the change in the krama (order) of sūtras A1. Loss of anuvṛtti and adhikāra: An avertible phenomenon. This is the fundamental point of difference between the AK and the PK methods. The order of sūtras in the ASP plays a crucial role in under-standing the structure and functioning of the A. This change in the kra-ma of sūtras in thematically rearranged texts such as the PrK, the VSK, the LSK certainly result in major setbacks – namely, the loss of anuvṛtti and adhikāra, the loss of para-apara technique, an inability in compre-hending sections beginning with rules like asiddhavadatrābhāt (P. 6.4.22), pūrvatrāsiddham (P. 8.2.1), etc. Though at places, the VSK vṛtti tries to of-fer the limit up to which the anuvṛtti or adhikāra continue,  still the lim16 -iting sūtra in the ASP is unknown to VSK student as he solely depends on the VSK krama. However, the allegation put up against the incorrect anuvṛtti of the word garhā in the sūtra kiṅkilāstyartheṣu lṛṭ (A 3.3.146), (from the rule garhāyāṃ laḍapi jātyoḥ A 3.3.142) does not withstand. The VSK vṛtti on A 3.3.146 says: “anavakḷptyamarṣayor ity etat garhāyāṃ ceti yāvad anuvartate |” The Bālamanoramā explains this as “garhāyāṃ cety ataḥ prāg ity arthaḥ |” Hence, it does not carry forward the word garhā from A 3.3.142, but states the limit of the anuvṛtti of the word “anavakḷptyamarṣayoḥ” – i.e., before the succeeding sūtra garhāyāṃ ca | (A 3.3.149). Hence, the remark in the VSK on this sūtra seems misinterpreted.  To avoid this misinterpretation and loss of anuvṛtti and adhikāra, the use of the ASP as a manual or a reference book to understand any text in the purview of Pāṇinian grammar, such as the VMB, KV, VSK, or LSK will benefit.  A2. Memorization of the VSK: Not the only aim!  “ā tṛtīyasamāpter adhikāroyam |” (VSK on dhātoḥ A.3.1.91). Here, the continuation of this 16adhikāra is understood (i.e., till the end of third chapter). However, the last sūtra of this chapter remains unknown to the VSK student.  Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of AK and PK 13To a great extent, it is true that the VSK, with its mnemonic style and utilitarian approach, completely washed away all other texts of Pāṇinian grammar from the pedagogical discourse. As a result, on one hand, the sūtras and their vṛttis were memorized from the VSK. But, on the other hand, their positions from the ASP were lost. At the same time, unique numbers were given to the sūtras in the VSK, which became more popu-lar than their positional numbers in the ASP. (For instance, 34 iko guṇavṛddhī, 35 acaśca, 36 ādyantau ṭakitau.)  Also, it led to the emergence 17of a new generation who studied the VSK but were ignorant about the position of a sūtra in the ASP. This resulted in a partial understanding of the meaning of a particular rule and ignorance about the exact domain where it may become applicable.  However, one of the obvious reasons behind the humongous popularity of the VSK was that it was and is not possible for every student to memo-rize the whole ASP before beginning the study of the A. To enter into this great edifice of Pāṇinian grammar, the VSK proved to be the first step. The person finished with the VSK was expected to excel further into the VMB.  Nowadays, even the VSK is replaced by the LSK. Hence, the study of both the ASP and the VSK complement each other.  A3. Vaidikī Prakriyā: A source to learn all vaidika sūtras in single section. The VSK is criticized for not offering enough attention to vaidika sūtras from the ASP which cannot be accepted. Though, unlike the ASP, it does not treat vaidika sūtras under the concerned topic, still it collects all these sūtras in a separate section called the “Vaidikī Prakriyā.” At various post-graduate courses in Sanskrit at universities in India – especially in Vyākaraṇa and Veda – this section from the VSK constitutes a signifi-cant part of the syllabus. This helps students to understand various ac-centual, phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic features of vaidika language in one glance. Hence, this portion from the A is cer-tainly taught and is not neglected. To gain a better understanding of these vaidika sūtras, locating their position in the ASP and comparing them with the laukika sūtras certainly proves beneficial.     A4. Cultivating the faculty of ūha: one of the utmost aims of Vyākaraṇa.   Siddhānta Kaumudī, p.22, 23.17 JOSHI & KULKARNI 14In the pedagogical discourse of any discipline, the aim of ūha should be fulfilled by every teacher and student. A student should be capable of characterizing, questioning, analyzing, and articulating the learned topics. The SKA notes the diminishing faculty of ūha on the part of the VSK students. This might be the case at some point of time in history as the book notes. However, the VSK or any other prakriyā nowhere pre-scribes such an attitude. In fact, it discusses certain basic technical is-sues such as “ḍitvasāmarthyāt abhasya api ṭer lopaḥ,” “pratyaye kim? vavraś ca,” and “he katarad kula iti” under the various sūtras. Still, this need of ūha, urged in the SKA should be attended and cultivated in every discipline by teachers as well as students.  Thus, these arguments which revolve around the changed order of the sū-tras are valid to a certain extent and they should be attended by teachers of Pāṇinian grammar. However, the drawbacks can be minimized and overcome by such a method in which the Pāṇinian grammar can be understood through vari-ous texts like the VMB, the VSK, etc., but with the mandatory use of the ASP.  B. Arguments other than the change in the krama (order) of the rules- B1. Continuation of “inherited notions” through guruparamparā, “not imaginative.” The issues such as incorporating new words in the sūtra, introducing  an imagined “ra pratyāhāra,” and wrongly attesting the authority of praty-āhārasūtras to Maheśvara on the part of the VSK are to be questioned and critically investigated. The VSK is not the first text to introduce “ra pratyāhāra.” In the PrK and in its commentary Prakāśa, this pratyāhāra is referred under the sūtra, “uraṇ raparaḥ” (A 1.1.51).  Also, the attestation 18of the authority of pratyāhārasūtras to Maheśvara is already discussed by Deshpande (1997) who elaborately traces back this notion to the middle of the first millennium, C.E. Hence, this was certainly a part of popular belief at the time of Bhaṭṭoji which he inherited and included in the VSK and not his own imagination.  The PrK reads “ṛḷsthānīyo'ṇ rapratyāhāraparo syāt |” While the commentary Prakāśa 18reads “ṛsthāne lakṣaṇāntareṇa vidhīyamāno'ṇ vidhānakāle eva tena saha saṃhṛtya rapratyāhāraparatvaviśiṣṭo 'nena sūtreṇa bhāvyate ||” (p. 59, pūrvārddha). Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of AK and PK 15Also, with regards to the composition of aniṭ kārikās, Bhaṭṭoji follows the KV and the PrK.  Though these kārikās are not prescribed either by 19Pāṇini or by Patañjali, still they weigh pedagogical importance in terms of facilitating all aniṭ roots together in mnemonic verses.  The topics raised above are subjects of critical research, some of which are studied in modern times. To find out, to minimize, as well as to re-move these issues regarding the dubious incorporations and imagina-tion of sūtras, vārtikas, kārikās, etc., the use of the critically-edited ASP should certainly be employed.  B2. Encouragement to the critical edition of the appendices of the A. Due to the popular practice of oral transmission of texts and the paucity of critically-edited and printed texts of Pāṇinian grammar,  the inter20 -polations and incorporations of words were inevitable which led to the loss of their authenticity. Not only in the VSK, but also in edited texts of the KV, these appendices possess variants with special reference to Gaṇapāṭha.  However, in the course of time, with the advancing tech21 -nology and the procurement and investigation of numerous manu-scripts, in the books of many Dhātupāṭhas, the itsañjñā svara and prayo-gasamavāyi svara are found to be indicated at the end of every set of roots indicating.  Hence, recovering the authentic texts of these appendices 22and other grammatical texts is developing as a new branch of philologi-cal research. Elimination of the VSK from the pedagogy is not the solu-tion to avoid such discrepancies.  B3. Inappropriate and coarse examples: Certainly not!  “udantamṛtāṃ ca vṛṅvṛñau śviḍīṅivarṇeṣvatha śīṅ śriñāvapi guṇasthamūdantamutāṃ ca rus19 -nuvau kṣuvaṃ tathorṇotimatho yuṇukṣṇavaḥ||” (The KV on A. 7.2.10) and “ūdṛdantarus-nukṣṇuśīyuṇukṣuśviḍiṅaśrībhiḥ| vṛṅvṛñbhyāṃ ca vinaikācaḥ svarāntāḥ dhātavo'niṭaḥ||” (PrK on A. 7.2.10) Bhīmasena Śāstrī describes the unavailability of the ASP and the monopoly of Daśa20 -granthī Ṛgvedī Brahmins over the available ASP text (Śāstrī 1959: 11).  See Kulkarni 2012.  21 Cf. Dhātupāṭha (1969).22 JOSHI & KULKARNI 16A change in the examples used within pedagogical discourse is a quite natural phenomenon in any discipline. Every author prefers citing sim-ple examples from their surrounding and inclinations. Hence, we see Bhaṭṭoji, an astute Vaishnavite, cites the examples related to Kṛṣṇa and Viṣṇu. Every book on the Pāṇinian sūtras contains several different ex-amples. Patañjali for the first time provided examples to the sūtras of Pāṇinian grammar which were generally followed throughout the tradi-tion. Bhaṭṭoji at many places observed to follow the same examples as in the VMB and the PrK.   The repetition of the form “viti” as an optional form to “ūm̐ iti” under the sūtra ūm̐ (A 1.1.18) created the ambiguity. The sūtra just says that when there is no ādeśa ūm̐, another optional form viti will be derived according to other grammarians, except Śākalya. The earlier sūtra “uña” (A. 1.1.17) already states the form viti, which got repeated in this sūtra and created confusion.  B4. Variants in the sūtras: the effect of time. Another argument is that the VSK possesses a number of variants in the sūtras, vārtikas, paribhāṣās etc. (16, pt. 10). As the literary history of San-skrit language witnesses, every text has gone through some or the other change in the form of additions, deletions and variation in words. Such changes in the VSK are bound to occur and should be viewed as the ef-fect of the time. With the advancing technology in critically editing and analyzing texts like the A, the VMB, the VSK, etc., the pedagogical issues springing from these variants in the sūtras can be warded off. Hence, this argument about variances against the VSK proves untenable in the purview of this dichotomy.  B5. Synoptic meaning of the sutra: The asset of the VSK. These differences in the interpretation of the sūtras are found through-out the tradition. These are not unique to Bhaṭṭoji’s VSK. The SKA criti-cizes the VSK vrtti on the sūtra alo'ntyasya (A. 1.1.52) which reads “ṣaṣṭhīnirdiṣṭa antyasya ala ādeśaḥ syāt” (38, pt. 4). However, the VSK edi-tions, available now read ṣaṣṭhīnirdiṣṭasyāntyasyāla ādeśaḥ syāt| This alto-gether changes the meaning of this sūtra and dispels the ambiguity. It conveys the correct meaning that the ādeśa should replace the sthāni which is indicated in the genitive case. This can be considered as the case of variant readings in the VSK.     Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of AK and PK 17It is true that in the VSK vṛtti of the sūtra hetuhetumatorliṅ (A 3.3.156), the word “vā” is directly added without the reference to the vārtika stating “an option,” as referred in the VMB.  A student may mistake this as the 23intent of Pāṇini, which is not so in reality. The Vārtikakāra is the one who observes so, and hence Patañjali follows the same. The PrK too adds the word vā in the vṛtti of this sūtra.  The student should be trained and 24made efficient in understanding the evolution of the sūtrārtha histori-cally to trace the development of the same throughout the tradition. However, the VSK aims at concretizing the Pāṇinian grammatical tradi-tion by synthesizing the views of the trimuni and establishing their au-thority. As this vārtika is nowhere rejected by Patañjali, this is the correct interpretation for the VSK. Hence, it adds the option in the sūtra-vṛtti itself. Also, there are many other sūtras, on which the VSK states “iti spaṣṭam,” like nīcair anudātaḥ. The intent behind such a remark is that the sūtra itself is capable of conveying the basic meaning, the tātparyārtha.    The VSK vṛtti of adhikaraṇavācinaś ca (A. 2.3.68), “ktasya yoge ṣaṣṭhī syāt” expects the supplement of adhikaraṇavācinaḥ to the word ktasya. Hence the meaning of this sūtra becomes that the suffix -kta which conveys the sense of adhikaraṇa gets the genitive case. This is one of the styles of the VSK where it does not repeat certain clear words from the sūtra and just explains the remaining meaning of the sūtra and words taken in the form of anuvṛtti and adhikāra.    In this way, some of the issues do not withstand, while some can be pre-vented in the pedagogical discourse of Pāṇinian grammar wherever the VSK is taught. Let us summarize these arguments, their analysis and their relevance in the conclusive remarks. 5. Conclusions Having analyzed the above arguments, they can be classified under certain head-ings on the basis of their substantiality and relevance in the pedagogical realm of the modern period.  hetuhetumator liṅ vā | (Vārtika on A. 3.3.156).23 hetvarthe hetumadarthe ca liṅ vā syāt || (PrK on A. 3.3.156).24 JOSHI & KULKARNI 181. Avertible issues: A large set of arguments, as presented by the SKA can be warded off by teachers as well as students of Pāṇinian grammar if certain measures are taken while teaching and learning it. The new books of the ASP contain the marks of the anuvṛtti and adhikāra for the facilitation of easier understanding. Also nowadays, the memorization of the VSK is almost discontinued from the pedagogy of Pāṇinian grammar. Also, several projects of critical editions of the appendices of the Pāṇinian grammar are undertaken, thus leading to the minimiza-tion of the loss of words and variants as found in the VSK. Hence, these issues are avertible ones.   2. The need of cultivation: A concern regarding the loss of the ūha faculty expressed by the SKA should be considered and cultivated with great efforts to widen the horizons of the discipline. 3. Investigative issues: Issues such as “ra pratyāhāra,” attesting the au-thority of pratyāhārasūtras to Maheśvara, aniṭ kārikās can be historically traced and their social, cultural, linguistic, and most importantly, ped-agogical underpinnings can be understood through thorough investi-gation. 4. Treatment as asset: Issues related to ambiguous meaning and the loss of appendices cannot be accepted. The VSK does not offer the ambiguous but synoptic meaning of the sutras in the mnemonic style. It also in-cludes the appendices, phiṭsūtras etc., thus making the VSK a compre-hensive book and an asset for the beginner of the Pāṇinian grammar.  On the basis of all these above arguments, the elimination of the VSK and allied texts, as the SKA calls for, cannot stand as a solution to enrich the study of Pāṇinian grammar. There are ways to minimize or to ward off certain drawbacks in the VSK and to cultivate certain abilities among the students of Pāṇinian grammar. On one hand, we observe that every single student who wishes to learn Pāṇinian grammar is not capable of completing the study of the 4000 sū-tras of Pāṇini. Though, on the other hand, the VSK cannot and should not be “the only text” of Pāṇinian grammar. Instead, the employment of such an approach where the study of both the VSK and the ASP are included will prove beneficial. In this context, we introduce an integrated method which blends the character-istics and the elimination of the setbacks of both the methods of the AK and the PK with the aim of achieving a comprehensive outlook towards the Pāṇinian grammar. We shall elaborate this in our future articles. Hence, “an extreme poli- Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of AK and PK 19cy” of complete exclusion of the VSK, as we see in the SKA, proves far-fetched and beyond acceptance.   Acknowledgments  This paper is an elaborate critique of Siddhānta Kaumudī kī Antyeṣṭī, which plays a crucial role in shaping the popular dichotomy of AK vs. PK in the pedagogy of Pāṇinian grammar. This constitutes one of the significant sources which we pre-sented in an earlier version of this paper at 17th World Sanskrit Conference held in July 2018 in Vancouver. The authors wish to thank the Convenors of the Sec-tions on Vyākaraṇa (Section 3) and Sanskrit Pedagogy (Section 17). We thank the audience at Vancouver for their appreciation and constructive criticism. We also wish to thank Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay for their continuous sup-port which resulted in the shape of this paper and the travel to Vancouver. We wish to thank the authorities at the Department of Sanskrit, University of Mum-bai, as well as at Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune where earlier versions of some parts of this paper were presented. We thank Dr. Madhav Deshpande for his generous help in availing the PDF copy of Siddhānta Kaumudī kī Antyeṣṭī. Prof. Malhar Kulkarni expresses his gratitude towards his Vyākaraṇa teachers at the Abhyankar Śāstrī Pāṭhaśālā, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth at Pune, University of Pune as well as Ārya Samāja, Pune. Sanhita Joshi expresses her gratitude to-wards her Vyākaraṇa teacher, Prof. Malhar Kulkarni for his incessant guidance and support in the study of Pāṇinian grammar. Abbreviations   A  Aṣṭādhyāyī AK  Aṣṭādhyāyī Krama                           ASP Aṣṭādhyāyī-sūtrapāṭha                     Bāla Bālamanoramā                               KV Kāśikāvṛtti         LSK Laghu-Siddhānta-Kaumudī PK  Prakriyā Krama                                                           PrK Prakriyā Kaumudī   Rūp Rūpāvatāra  JOSHI & KULKARNI 20VMB Vyākaraṇa Mahābhāṣya                   VSK Vaiyākaraṇa Siddhānta Kaumudī Vt Vārtika  Bibliography Primary Sources Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini, with the Padaccheda, Vṛtti, Vārtika, Ṭipaṇṇī. Edited by Gopā-ladutta Pandey.  Varanasi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan, 2016.  Dhātupāṭha of Pāṇini, with Dhātvarthaprakāśikā Notes by Pt. Kanakalal Śarmā. Haridas Sanskrit Series, 281. Second Edition. Varanasi: Chowkhmba Sanskrit Series Office. 1969. Kāśikāvyākhyā of Jayāditya-Vāmana, with the Padamañjarī commentary by Hara-datta. Edited by Dāmodara Śāstrī. Reprint from Pandit. Kashi: Medical Hall, 1952-1965. Prakriyā Kaumudī of Ramachandrācārya, with the Prakriyā Prakāśa commentary by Śrī Krṣṇa. Edited by Panditashrī Muralīdhara Miśra, with his commen-tary Raśmī. Saravatī Bhavana Granthamālā. Volume II and III. 2nd Edition. Varanasi: Sampurnānanda Sanskrit University, 2000. Siddhānta Kaumudī of Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita. Edited and Translated into English by Śriṣa Candra Vasu and Vāmana Dāsa Vasu. Vol II, Part 1. Allahabad: The Pāṇini Office Bhuvaneśwarī Aśrama, 1906. Vaiyākaraṇa Siddhānta Kaumudī of Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita, with the Bālamanoramā com-mentary by Vāsudeva Dīkṣita. Part 2. (Uttarārdha). Edited by Śaṃ. Can-draśekhara Śāstrī. Parimal Sanskrit Granthamala, 41. Delhi: Parimala Pu-blications. Reprint 1994 (First Edition 1910). Vaiyākaraṇa Siddhānta Kaumudī of Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita, with the commentaries Tatt-vabodhini by Jñānendra Saraswatī, Bālamanoramā of Vāsudeva Dīkṣita, Laghuśabdenduśekhara by Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa. Pūrvārdha and Uttarārdha. Edi-ted by Guruprasad Shastri, Sitaram Shastri nad Bal Shastri. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Surbharati Prakashan. First Edition, 2012. Vyākaraṇa Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali. Edited by F. Kielhorn. Volume 3, Part 1, Bom-bay Sanskrit Series No, XXVIII, Bombay: Government Central Book De-pot, 1884.  Tracing the Underpinning Arguments of the Dichotomy of AK and PK 21Secondary Sources Abhyankar, Kashinath Vasudev and Shukla, J. M. 1986: A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar. Baroda: Oriental Institute of Baroda. 3rd. ed., reprinted (Origi-nal publication, 1961).   Bali, Suryakanta. 1976: Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita: His Contribution to Sanskrit Grammar. Del-hi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. Deshpande, Madhav M. 1997. “Who Inspired Pāṇini? Reconstructing Hindu and Buddhist Counter-Claims.” Journal of American Oriental Society, 117.3: 445-465. Jijñāsu, Brahmadatta Devī Prajñā. 2011. Aṣṭādhyāyībhāṣya Prathamāvṛtti. Vol. 1. Harayana: Ramlal Kapoor Trust. 6th ed. (Originally published, 1964). Joshi, Sanhita and Malhar Kulkarni. Forthcoming. “Some Remarks on the Interac-tion between the Aṣṭādhyāyī Krama (AK) and the Prakriyā Krama (PK).” Kulkarni, Malhar. 2012. “Some Issues in Editing the Gaṇapāṭhas in the Kāśikāvṛtti.” In Studies in Sanskrit Grammars: Proceedings of the Vyakarana Section of the 14th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, edited by George Cardona, Ashok Aklujkar, and Hideyo Ogawa. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 2012, 213-258. Laddu, S. D. 1987. “How Early Were the Handbooks on Derivation (Prakriyā) in Sanskrit Grammar?” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 68 (Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar 150th Birth-Anniversary Volume): 593-601. Sarasvatī, Maharṣi Dayānanda. 2008. Satyārtha Prakāśa. Delhi: Ārṣa Vidyā Pracā-ra Trust. 69th edition. Śāstrī, Bhīmasena. 1959. Virajānanda-Prakāśa. Delhi: Prācya Vidyā Pratiṣṭhāna. Śāstrī, Paṇḍita Rājendranātha. 1937. Siddhānta Kaumudī kī Antyeṣṭī. Delhi: Śrī Dayānanda Veda Vidyālaya and Dayānanda Sevā Sangha.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items