Värttikas.”
300
KUMARILA BHATTA.
OCT, 4, 1872.]
Kshemendra merely states, that
- Vararuchi, through the grace of Sambhu, recol
lected the grammar (i.e., that of Indra).” Again in the story of Putraka, Somadeva states (I. 3-22,) that the new-born child, by the grace of
Siva, ob
tained a daily present of a lakh of pieces of gold ; Kshemendra contents himself with one thousand
coins. Now it is invariably the rule that the later Sanskrit poets, especially if they treat of the same subject as their earlier brethren, try
story ‘Why the fish laughed’ (Kathasaritsägara I. 5, 14, 27.) In the first sloka, Somadeva states that “Yogananda saw his queen asking a Brahman
guestS (about what is not said) and became jealous.' Kshemendra says that the queen asked a Brahman about the lunar day (tithiprasne dvijanmånam bhāshamānām). Now this looks exactly as if Somadeva had had before him a bad MS. which contained the syllables ‘tithim'
and as if, not understanding their real meaning
to efface the latter by exaggerating, not by toning
he had made the word atithin out of them and
down too glaring absurdities. Hence it is not likely that, when writing such passages, Kshe
referred that to the Brahman.
mendra had before him the Kathasaritsägara.
of Somadeva and Kshemendra, that they re modelled a Prakrit original, perfectly credible. But if that is granted, the recovery of Kshemen
Finally, there are other differences in the two works which, it seems to me, find a sufficient explanation only if we assume that either author worked on a Prakrit original.
Thus
Śātavāhana's adoptive father's name is given as Dvipakarni by Somadevaf and as Dipakarna by Kshemendra.
These two forms look like trans
literations of a Paisàchi “ Dipakanna or Tipa kanna.'t Again the teacher of Pushpadanta is named in the Kathâsaritsägara (I. 7, 56) Veda kumbha in the Vrihatkatha Vedagarbha.
Ac
cording to the Prakrit grammarians the Paisà chi form of Vedagarbha would be Vedakabbha, and that would explain the different forms used by the two Sanskrit poets. Another curious discrepancy occurs in the
All these circumstances make the statements
dra's work furnishes us with a powerful instru ment for determining the exact contents of the old Paisàchi Vrihatkathâ. The old Wrihatkatha once being reconstructed, we shall further obtain
important results for the history of those works, which like the Panchtantra the Wetálapancha viñsati are embodied in it. For Gunadhya's Vrihatkathá possessed certainly a higher antiquity than the Persian or Mongolian translations of those fable-books. I must defer the explora tion of the portions of Kshemendra's work, which
contain these stories books, until later; but I may state now that the Vrihatkatha includes
them just as well as the Kathasaritsägara.
AN INTERESTING PASSAGE
IN KUMARILA BHATTA's TANTRAVARTTIKA. By A. C. BURNELL, M.C.S., M.R.A.S., MANGALORE. THE most famous Mim a fi sã treatise exist
ing in India, is Kumarila Bhatta's Tan
in England or India. Among a mass of argu ments which are neither interesting nor of any
tra v art tika, a commentary on the Jaim i ni-s à tras, but supplementary to Ś a bara's
customs, races, and languages, that certainly
Bhāshya. It seems uncertain if this work exists in a complete form, but the examination
ready given one relating to the Buddhists, but
importance, there are however casual notices of deserve excerpting.
Prof. Max Müller'ſ has al
of a number of MSS. leads me to the conclu
the following which, I believe, is the earliest
sions arrived at by Dr. F. E. Hall, that the chief divisions bear distinct names, improbable though this may seem. Granted the premisses, it is a very subtle and
known mention (in Sanskrit) of the Dravidian languages has passed unnoticed. Kum a ril a
well-reasoned treatise, but since Dr. Goldstücker
the words he mentions are still good current Tamil words, and his evident acquaintance with
is no more, it is little likely to attract attention
- Kath. I. 4-88.
B h a t t a lived at the end of the seventh cen
tury A.D." so it is interesting to remark that
§ ‘Prichchhantim brāhmānātithim. | Contributions towards an Inder. p. 170.
- Kathâs. I. 6, 88.
f According to the conflicting statements of the gramma rians either form is possible. See Lassen, Inst. Prak. 439 &
- See the reasons for this given in the preface to my
edition of the Samavidhāna Brählmana, and which are from
440.
Tibetan texts,
- Ancient Sans. Lit. pp. 79 and 80 (note).