How Far Did Paninis Fame Really Extend In Patanjalis View

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "How Far Did Panini's Fame Really Extend In Patanjali's View" by A. Wezler:

This article by A. Wezler critically examines a scholarly debate initiated by V.P. Limaye concerning the interpretation of a phrase in Patanjali's Mahābhāṣya (MBh.) regarding the extent of the grammarian Panini's fame. The phrase in question is ākumāram yaśaḥ pāṇineḥ ("Panini's fame extends up to kumāra"). Limaye argues that ākumāram is a corruption and should be emended to ākumārī, implying that Panini's fame extended to Kanyakumari (Cape Comorin), the southernmost tip of India. Wezler, however, strongly refutes this thesis, arguing that the traditional interpretation of ākumāram as "up to children" or "up to boys" is correct and well-supported.

Wezler's Main Arguments and Critiques of Limaye:

1. Misinterpretation of Patanjali's Text and Context:

   • Wezler points out that Limaye abridges the discussion in the MBh. on Panini's rule 1.4.89 (ā maryādā vacane). Patanjali uses ākumāram yaśaḥ pāṇineḥ as an example to demonstrate that the sutra ā maryādā vacane is sufficient, and a rewording to include abhividhi (inclusive limit) is unnecessary.
   • The interpretation of ākumāram by commentators like Kaiyata and Nagesa, and even earlier by Annambhatta and Sivarāmendrasarasvati, is that Panini's fame reached even children (kumārān api yaśaḥ prāptam). This implies that children were not expected to know Panini, thus highlighting the extraordinary reach of his fame.
   • Wezler emphasizes that Patanjali and other commentators clearly understand kumāra in this context to refer to children, not a geographical location.

2. Critique of the Kasika's Context:

   • Limaye draws support for his ākumārī thesis from the Kasika commentary on Panini 1.4.89, which lists examples like ā pāṭaliputrāt, ā sānkāsyāt, and ā mathurāt. He infers from this context that kumāra should also be a place-name.
   • Wezler argues that the Kasika's examples are largely derived from or inspired by the MBh. The context of place-names in the Kasika does not necessitate that ākumāram in the MBh. must refer to a place. The Kasika's examples illustrate different meanings of the preposition ā (exclusive vs. inclusive limits), not that all instances must be place-names.
   • Wezler finds Limaye's conclusion that the MBh. reading must be corrupt based on the Kasika's context to be arbitrary and a leap of logic, as the MBh. context is entirely different.

3. Rejection of Limaye's Textual Criticism Arguments:

   • Limaye argues that the lack of variant readings for ākumāram in Kielhorn's edition of the MBh. doesn't prove it's correct, as corruptions can occur in oral traditions. He cites Bharthari's Vakyapadiya to suggest that South Indians might have preserved a purer text.
   • Wezler dismisses this as an unsubstantiated attempt to reverse textual criticism principles. While corruptions happen, it doesn't mean every correct-looking reading is corrupt. Bharthari's observation that the MBh. has corruptions doesn't justify a speculative approach to any specific word. He also notes that Limaye's invocation of a single manuscript tradition is insufficient grounds for emendation.

4. Refutation of Circumstantial Evidence for Kumari:

   • Limaye seeks to establish that Patanjali could have known the name kumari (Cape Comorin) by pointing to its mention in the Mahabharata and Patanjali's knowledge of South Indian regions (pāṇḍya, coḍa, kerala).
   • Wezler states that even if Patanjali knew the name kumari, it doesn't logically follow that ākumāram in the MBh. refers to it.
   • Limaye's reliance on Raghuvamsa is also criticized, suggesting he forces interpretations to fit his thesis.
   • Wezler argues that Limaye's evidence for the idiom "from the Himalayas to Cape Comorin" (himavat ca kumāribhyah) is misinterpreted. The idiom means "up to the Himalayas and up to Cape Comorin" and implies a speaker located between these points, not a geographical extension in the sense Limaye proposes. Furthermore, it was used in Mimamsa texts to define the area of usage for a Sanskrit word.

5. Defense of the "Children" Interpretation:

   • Wezler argues that passages from the Mahabharata cited by Mehendale (who supports Limaye) actually confirm the interpretation of ākumāram as "up to children." These passages show the existence of an avyayibhava compound meaning "down to boys/children" and that it is an old tradition.
   • Wezler posits that there are two distinct conceptualizations of fame or knowledge: horizontal (geographical spread) and vertical (reaching certain types of people). The latter emphasizes the breadth of fame by including those not expected to know the person, like children or the unlearned. Expressions like ākumāram convey this sense, often implying "even."
   • He lists other similar compounds like āgopāla, ābala, and ā bālagoppāla, which reinforce this "vertical" understanding of extension.
   • Wezler concludes that Patanjali's ākumāram yaśaḥ pāṇinen is an early and perfectly valid example of this tradition, meaning "Panini's fame extends even to boys/children."

6. Historical and Pedagogical Context:

   • Wezler suggests that the interpretation of ākumāram as reaching children might have caused discomfort later on, as Sanskrit teaching shifted and grammar became more foundational for children. However, in Patanjali's time, the situation was different, with even śiṣṭas (learned people) using correct words intuitively.
   • He notes that the exact age group kumāra refers to is not defined in the MBh. itself, but "boy, lad, youth" is the common meaning in older Sanskrit. This likely refers to boys who haven't undergone initiation or are still learning the Vedas.

7. Semantic Shift and Later Interpretations:

   • Wezler acknowledges a semantic shift in classical Sanskrit where kumāra came to mean "prince." This might have contributed to later confusion or alternative interpretations, such as those by Bhattojidikshita.

Conclusion:

A. Wezler firmly concludes that Limaye's attempt to emend ākumāram to ākumārī and interpret it as reaching Cape Comorin is unfounded. The traditional understanding of ākumāram as "up to children" or "up to boys," signifying the extraordinary reach of Panini's fame, is supported by Patanjali, his commentators, and other linguistic evidence from the Mahabharata. The arguments for emendation are based on misinterpretations of context and speculative textual criticism. Wezler asserts that the existence of compounds like ākumāram demonstrates a valid and old Sanskrit tradition of expressing broad reach by including those not typically expected to possess knowledge or fame.