Tamil's contribution to Paninian grammatical tradition

[Aklujkar]

In light of the information available in Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan's recent
postings, I need to add to my statement on Tri-kuu.ta in "Interpreting
Vakyapadiya 2.486 historically (part 3)Æ  published in _Paninian Studies:
Professor S.D. Joshi felicitation volume_, pp. 1-47. Eds. Deshpande, Madhav
M.; and Bhate, Saroja. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for South
and Southeast Asian Studies.

However, before one concludes that >the zaivite and Buddhist claims originated
not in the northwest of Indian subcontinent but in the southern portion of
 ancient Tamil region which includes present Tamilnadu and Kerala.  ...  the
contribution to PANinian tradition by Buddhists may very well have been due
to the Tamil grammatical tradition,< many more links must be explored and
reasonably established. We should also remember that here we are in the
realm of mythology and legend and that claims regarding inspiring Paa.nini
are different from claims regarding recovery of vyaakara.nagama by
Candracaarya and others in the post-Pata;njali period.

(It is not even certain that Candraacarya is the same as Candra-gomin or
that the original Caandra grammar did not contain Vedic rules. )

As I argue in the article mentioned above, parvata, if it stands for a
mountain in the Vaakyapadiiya account of Candraacaarya,  is most likely to
stand for ;Srii-parvata.

Discovery of the >maJjuzrimUlakalpa ...  from Manalikkara Matam near
Padmanabhapuram in South India< seems to be an oddity. It could be a
recently imported or borrowed manuscript or transcript.  One needs to
compile a list of  Buddhist works discovered in South India before one can
be sure in this regard. However, it is my impression that South India,
particularly Kerala, which has preserved many priceless works, has not
preserved many Buddhist works (at present, aside from
Ma;nju;srii-muula-kalpa, I can think of only Padya-cuu.daa-ma.ni or
Siddhaartha-caritam, an epic in Classical Sanskrit style, imitative of
Kaali-daasa and narrating the legend of the Buddha up to his enlightenment,
ascribed to Buddha-gho.sa). I would welcome being corrected in this matter.
(I am not thinking of commentaries written on Brahmanical works by Buddhist
or suspected Buddhist authors, as in the case of the Kaa;sikaa, or of Tamil
works said to exhibit a preference for Buddhism. I mean hardcore, sectarian
Buddhist works.) Despite its proximity to Sri Lanka, despite its
connections with Southeast Asian countries and despite the  pigrimages of
Buddhists to Naagaarjuna-ko.n.daa etc. recorded in inscriptions., South
India seems to have lost interest in studying exclusively or typically
Buddhist works for a long time. Its living and sustained interaction with
Buddhism seems to have ceased early in the first millenium A.D. (Is there
any Buddhist philosopher after Dharma-kiirti, 6th-7th century A.D., who is
said to be of South Indian origin?) Although this amounts to taking a
different tack on Palaniappan's postings, I think it is related and worth
exploring. I look forward to my impression being corrected.