About a Forgotten Grammarian Dhanapala
Summary
Smt. Neelanjana S. Shah's article "About a Forgotten Grammarian Dhanapala" argues that Dhanapala, a medieval Sanskrit grammarian, has been unjustly ignored by historians despite being quoted at least thirty times as an authority in two notable treatises on the Dhatupathas, the Purusakara and the Ma. Dha. Vr. The author aims to resurrect Dhanapala's opinions and reinstate him in the history of Sanskrit grammar. The exact date of Dhanapala remains unknown, but his lower limit is the 13th century A.D., the date of the author of the Purusakara, Krsna Lilasuka, who quotes him forty-seven times, while his upper limit is 1050 A.D., the date of Ksirasvami, who does not quote him. The article presents collected and classified data on Dhanapala's views regarding controversial points about various Sanskrit roots. The evidence shows that Dhanapala agreed with Sakatayana on numerous roots, such as i, ri, din, taks, dhvan, macuh, yabh-jabh, lad, vaj, varh-valh, varh-valh, sah-suh, ku, vrji, dr, krp, tana, pis, bho, vid, snih, and svad. He also agreed with Maitreyaraksita, Ksirasvami, the Ma. Dha. Vr., Hemacandra, and Durga on specific roots. However, Dhanapala differed considerably from Pāṇini regarding the meanings and forms of roots like ghusir, subh, pat, pad, pis, vid, vaj, and svad. He also introduced variations in the forms of roots like macuh, tanu, barh-balh, and sniha, and added jabh to yabh in the sense of 'ranarthuna'. The author concludes that Dhanapala was a grammarian of high order who thoroughly studied the facets of the roots and did not accept the Dhatupathas rigidly. He seems to have been guided by the prevalent usage of his age, possibly influenced by the Candra tradition, and carefully noticed differences in the speech of Dramidas and Aryas. The article suggests that Dhanapala might be identical to the one referred to by Hemacandra in the introductory verse of his Brhad-Vrtti on the Abhidhana-cintamani.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This article resurrects the forgotten medieval grammarian Dhanapala, whose significant opinions on Sanskrit Dhatupathas have been entirely ignored by historians. Through a meticulous analysis of his views as quoted in major treatises like the Purusakara and Madhaviya Dhatuvrtti, the study establishes his chronological boundaries between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. Dhanapala is revealed to be a highly independent scholar who critically engaged with traditional texts, often differing from Panini and Sakatayana by aligning his interpretations with the prevalent spoken usage of his era. His work highlights the importance of contemporary linguistic practice over rigid adherence to ancient grammatical schools. Consequently, this research provides crucial source material for further studies and rightfully reinstates Dhanapala in his proper historical position as a profound and discerning authority in the development of Sanskrit grammatical traditions.