Panini Vs Katyayan

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

The view that Vararuchi attacked Panini and that Patanjali defended Panini against Vararuchis
attacks was most probably started by Theodore !oldstucker. In "#$", !oldstuckers preface to
the %aanvasutras was published as a book by itself with the title &Panini' (is Place in )anskrit
*iterature&. In page +o. ",- 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
conse/uence 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 Panini0 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.&

1ccording to 2. Kielhorns book published in "#3$ &Katyayana and Patanjali' their relation to each other
and to Panini&, !oldstucker was a most influential scholar and his views were adapted widely by
4uropean scholars. In that book Kielhorn refutes the views of !oldstucker and shows that Katyayana
&dispassionately e5amines the rules laid down 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.& 6p
",-7. Kielhorn thinks that Katyayana should be called a follower and judicious admirer of Panini.

The same issue was taken up in Vidyaratna Prof. P. ). )ubrahmanya )astris &*ectures on Patanjalis
%ahabhyashya& published in "899. (e gave a table analysing the review of sutras by Patanjali and
Katyayana, which is attached. In his own words 6p 555iv7, &...of about 1700 sutras discussed there :in
the %ahabhashya;, about 450 have no varttikas. <f the remaining 1250 sutras, more than 700 sutras
are beautifully e5plained by the Varttikakara without picking any hole in them. 1bout 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 =$ sutras does Patanjali defend Panini against Vararuchi. Vidyaratna also shows with e5amples
the respect Vararuchi had for Panini on one hand 6he uses the word >hagavan to refer to Panini for
instance7 and the respect that Patanjali had for Vararuchi on the other hand. ?eproducing all the
instances here would not be apt, but a couple of e5amples could be useful.

*et us consider the sutra ".=." . 1ny self.respecting critic would not fail to notice that
it must be and that the additional &va& is incorrect. 1n 4uropean scholar of say, "@- 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. Ahat does Vararuchi have to sayB This' & s
& The same spirit is seen in the commentary 6mahabhashya7 on the first varttika, &
s , & The point here is that
siddha has to be interpreted as +itya, and not &ready& 6as in siddham annam7. The objector asks why
the Varttikakara could not use the word &nitya& itself, if that was the intention. Patanjalis reply is'

&
, , &

6Prof. P. ). )ubrahmanya )astris translation, p@9' &2or the sake of mangala. The 1charya 6Katyayana7,
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.&7. This sentence also shows the spirit of both
1charya and )ishya. 1charya wants those who read his works to be long.lived, a virapurusha 6I suspect
vira can be interpreted differently than heroic, maybe in the way )rividyopasakas use the word vira7
and to get his desires fulfilled0 later acharyas take up the works of earlier acharyas only in such positive
light.

1nother interesting point to note is that !oldstucker most likely did not study the %ahabhashya, e5cept
at a few places, before making his comments0 Kielhorn himself admits to have studied only the
navahnikam at the time of making his comments 6he published the other volumes of his %ahabhashya
later, after forming this view70 Prof. )astri e5plicitly states that he studied the entire te5t.

Thus, while there is no denying that the later e5ponents indeed disagreed with Panini, unlike an
&attack&, such disagreement was resorted to only when no other e5planation could be found. Ae find
this disagreement by )ishyas continued for at least another thousand years, for instance, the way
)uresvaracharya disagrees with )ankaracharya on the /uestion 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 )iva, the e5planation ought to be that the former is meant to eulogise Patanjali, and that the
latter is merely a story, not accurate history. 1t best, it can be said that that particular story.teller :";
thought highly of Katyayana. The te5t itself has contrary evidence, with Patanjali referring to Panini and
Katyayana as 1charya, and Katyayana referring to Panini as >hagavan. 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.
1lso, we have the tradition of prayers like &...&, & ...&
which clearly establishes all the three as munis, who have together blessed us with the )astra.

Therefore, whether we take a te5tual.analysis approach, or rely on tradition, the view that Katyayana
attacked, and Patanjali defended, Panini is incorrect.

>est regards
+. )iva )enani

:"; Kathasaritsagara was based on the >rihatkathaa of !unadhya, composed at the time of
)atavahanas. %ost likely !unadhya was a )outherner0 we know from the %ahabhashya that
Katyayana was a )outherner0 so, maybe in the )outh, Katyayana was held in the same esteem as
Panini or, even one step higher, for only a higher intellect can &improve& upon a great work. This is must
my speculation . I have not read this or heard this view anywhere. +)).