કાશ્યપ : પાણિનીય ધાતુપાઠના એક અપ્રસિદ્ધ વૃત્તિકાર
By Nilanjana S. Shah
Summary
This Gujarati article introduces readers to Kaśyapa (also referred to as Kauśika), a little‑known medieval grammarian who wrote a vṛtti (commentary) on Pāṇini’s Dhātupāṭha (the list of verbal roots). The original commentary is lost, but fragments survive through citations in later works such as Kāśikāvṛtti, Kṣīratarṅginī, Puruṣkara‑vṛtti and Madhavīya Dhātu‑vṛtti. The article summarises research by modern scholars who have pieced together Kaśyapa’s views from these citations. Kaśyapa often proposed radical reinterpretations of root meanings. For example, he reversed the meanings of dad and dadh, suggesting that the former meant “to distribute” rather than “to give,” and the latter “to give” rather than “to distribute.” He posited new verbal roots for words like jyoti (light) and argued that some roots began with consonants not recognised in Pāṇini’s list. He interpreted the root vith in the sense of “to measure” and yāc not as “to beg” but “to ask respectfully,” highlighting semantic nuances. The article also notes Kaśyapa’s attention to orthographic variations: in manuscripts where the consonants ba and va were easily confused, he sometimes proposed corrections that altered the root’s initial letter. Scholars infer that Kaśyapa belonged to a grammatical tradition open to innovation and that he worked with Prakrit or vernacular phonology in mind. The author argues that studying Kaśyapa expands our understanding of medieval Sanskrit linguistics, showing that Pāṇini’s authority was occasionally challenged and supplemented. It also underscores the value of minor commentaries for reconstructing the history of Indian grammatical thought. By examining Kaśyapa’s proposals, modern linguists can appreciate the diversity of interpretations that flourished after Pāṇini and gain insight into the interplay between written and spoken language in premodern India.
Conclusion
The article concludes that Kaśyapa was an innovative grammarian whose reinterpretations of Pāṇini’s verbal roots reflect a dynamic linguistic landscape. Though his commentary on the Dhātupāṭha is lost, surviving citations show that he questioned established meanings and incorporated vernacular phonetics into his analyses. Recognising such lesser‑known scholars enriches our understanding of Sanskrit grammar’s evolution and highlights the plurality of voices in India’s intellectual history.