Kaushik Ek Aprasiddha Vaiyakaran - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Kaushik Ek Aprasiddha Vaiyakaran" by Nilanjana Shah:

This article, "Kaushik: An Obscure Grammarian," by Nilanjana Shah, published by ZZ_Anusandhan, focuses on identifying and analyzing the grammatical contributions of an otherwise obscure grammarian named Kaushik. The author draws extensively from later commentaries and works that cite Kaushik's opinions on Panini's Dhatupatha (a catalog of Sanskrit roots).

Kaushik's Significance and Sources:

Kaushik is known to have written a commentary on the Panini Dhatupatha, but this work is no longer extant.
His views are preserved through citations in later renowned works such as KsheerSwami's "Ksheeratarangini" (11th century CE), the "Purushkar Vritti" on "Daiva" (13th century CE), and Sayana's "Madhaviya Dhatu Vritti" (14th century CE).
The earliest available mention of Kaushik's opinions on Dhatus (roots) is in "Ksheeratarangini," confirming he lived before the 11th century CE.
The author presents Kaushik's views chronologically as found in "Ksheeratarangini" to highlight his insightful contributions to Sanskrit grammar.

Key Grammatical Points and Kaushik's Opinions:

The article details several specific instances where Kaushik's interpretations differ from the mainstream or offer unique insights:

√dad (to give) / √dadhr (to hold): While most Dhatupathas list 'dad' for 'giving' and 'dadh' for 'holding,' Kaushik reverses this, associating 'dad' with 'holding' and 'dadh' with 'giving.' This is supported by citations from Nirukta and Durga. Sayana in "Madhaviya Dhatu Vritti" critiques this view, citing literary examples where the standard meanings are used. KsheerSwami, however, presents Kaushik's view and offers a balanced explanation, emphasizing that the pronouncements of the great sages are the ultimate authority.
√yutr / √jūtr (to shine): Kaushik suggests an additional root, √jyūti, in addition to √jūti, to explain the word "jyotiḥ" (light). While the author of "Ksheeratarangini" shows how "jyotiḥ" can be derived from √dyut (to shine) alone, Kaushik's proposal suggests he perceived a distinct root for the concept.
√vith (to go) / √yāch (to ask): Kaushik proposes that the roots √vithur and √yātan should be understood in the sense of "suffering" (yātanā) rather than "going" (vith) or "asking" (yāch). KsheerSwami refutes this, arguing that the word 'vithuraḥ' (one who causes suffering) can be derived from √vyath (to tremble/move) through amplification (samprasāraṇa) as per the Unadi Sutras, without needing to alter the meaning of √vith.
√shchyut (to drip): Kaushik suggests a form without the 'y' (kāras), i.e., 'shchati,' for this root. Sayana in "Madhaviya Dhatu Vritti" supports this by quoting Rigvedic verses cited by Bhatt Bhaskara and Maitreyi, where the root appears without 'y'. Hemachandra also lists similar forms. This indicates Kaushik might have recognized a more ancient or variant form of the root.
√drā (to move with effort) / √drā (to extend): Kaushik interprets the meaning of √drā differently from most grammarians. While others see it as "effort" (āyāsa), Kaushik understands it as "extension" (āyāma), defining it as "action characterized by length." Sayana also presents this view. This interpretation is supported by words like 'drāghimā' and 'drāviṣṭa', suggesting Kaushik might have grasped the core meaning related to length.
√heḍ (to hinder) / √viṭ (to abuse): Kaushik does not list these roots. This absence suggests he might not have considered them valid or distinct, or perhaps his entire Dhatupatha did not include them. The author notes that "Madhaviya Dhatu Vritti" and "Dhatuprakasha" also omit √heḍ and √viṭ.
√kuḍi (to be weak): Kaushik, along with Durga, reads this root as √kuṭi. The text notes that while the mainstream Dhatupathas use √kuḍi for "weakness," other grammarians like Chandre, Jainendra, Katantra, Shakatayana, and Hemachandra use √kuṭ. The mention of potential misreading in manuscripts is also highlighted.
√muḍi (to break): Kaushik, along with Durga, reads this root as √muṭi. This differs from the common reading of √muḍi. The article points out a potential scribal error in manuscripts, where 'ṭi' might have been misread as 'ṭhi'.
√shuṭhi (to absorb): KsheerSwami states that Kaushik does not accept or read this root. The article notes that while Sayana and others mention √shuṭh, Chandre's Dhatupatha also omits it, suggesting Kaushik might have followed a similar tradition.
√mep / √reph (to go): Kaushik proposes reading 'heph' instead of 'reph.' This form is not found in other Dhatupathas.
Roots starting with 'R' and 'N' (e.g., √arb, √barb, √karb): Kaushik believes that in these roots, the 'r' sound should be replaced by 'n' (e.g., √anb, √banb, √kanb). This is attributed to potential misreading of the Sharada script where 'r' and 'n' look similar.
√van / √bhan / √dhan (to speak): Kaushik reads √dhan as √dhan (with a dental 'n' instead of a retroflex 'ṇ'). This reading is supported by the Kashakritsna Dhatupatha and Bopadeva's Kavi.
√tsar (to move deceitfully): Kaushik suggests the form 'tsam' and its present tense form 'tsadmati.' This root is not found in other Dhatupathas.
√kav (to speak): Kaushik reads this root as √kash. The editor of "Ksheeratarangini" notes that the placement of √kav among sibilant roots seems incorrect, and √kash fits the context better. This root is found in Hemadhātuvidya and Kavi.
√khanbh (to trust): Kaushik reads this root as √sanh. This form is only found in Kavi and is acknowledged by its commentator Durgadas as not being widely accepted. Bopadeva's Kavi supports Kaushik's reading.
√kṣaji (to move, to give): Kaushik reads this root as √kṣaj. This is a significant difference as √kṣaji, when read with the 'it' augment, forms different past tense forms than √kṣaj. Kaushik's suggestion likely stems from observing actual usage.
√dāśr̥ (to give): Kaushik proposes reading this root as √dāy. If √dāśr̥ is accepted, the present tense form is dāśrate, whereas with √dāy, it becomes dāyate. Bopadeva's Kavi also lists √dāyr̥.
√shiẏi (to speak indistinctly): Kaushik suggests adding √piji to this root, associating it with indistinct speech. The commentator Kasyapa also holds a similar view. The root √piji is not found in other Dhatupathas with this meaning. The article explores the evolution of the root's meaning and form over time and across different grammatical traditions.
√pr̥chī (to connect): Kaushik reads this root as √pūchi. Sayana, in the "Madhaviya Dhatu Vritti," argues against this, stating that √pr̥chī belongs to the Rudhadi class, not the Adadi class, and that the form √pūchi is incorrect. However, Kaushik's view is supported by Dravidian grammarians and Nandiswami, a commentator on Jainendra Vyakarana.
√bil (to break): Kaushik reads this root as √bhiil. This reading is also found in Bopadeva's Kavi, but generally, √bil is the accepted form. The commentary on Nirukta offers a meaning for 'bhillam' that suggests √bhiil as its root.
√vyay (to diminish): Kaushik suggests adding √vyap in addition to √vyay for the meaning of "exertion." This root √vyap is only found in Bopadeva's Kavi.
√chushir (to be silent): Kaushik reads this root as √ghush. This affects the formation of past tense forms. KsheerSwami explains that the 'ir' augment indicates a non-permanent causative form. Kaushik's preference for √ghush might be based on the usage of specific past tense forms in his time.
√luṭ (to churn): Kaushik, along with Kashyap, Nandiswami, and Dravidian grammarians, reads this root as 'ḍānta' (ending in ḍa) instead of 'yānta' (ending in ya). The article notes that only √viṭ (to abuse) is found with a 'ḍānta' form in some Dhatupathas. Kaushik's view is supported by the "Madhaviya Dhatu Vritti" and Nandiswami.

Conclusion:

The article concludes that Kaushik was a significant grammarian who provided extensive commentary on the Panini Dhatupatha. His views reveal familiarity with various grammatical traditions beyond the Paninian lineage, including connections with Katantra, Jainendra, and Dravidian grammars. Kaushik's suggestions often highlight the original forms of roots affected by Prakrit language influence and correct misreadings in scripts. His insights into root meanings and the inclusion of new roots suggest he was based on a rich literary tradition, much of which may now be lost. The author emphasizes the importance of usage (prayoga) in validating grammatical theories and anticipates further research will unearth more evidence supporting Kaushik's contributions.