11 3 15
Patañjali states on V. 3 Paspaśāhnika, priyataddhitā dākṣiṇātyāḥ while commenting on the use of the word luikika instead of loke by Kātyāyana. It seems to indicate that Patañjali distinguished himself from the Dākṣiṇātyas ‘Southerners’.
Best wishes for all
.
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <palaniappa@aol.com>
To: Indology@list.indology.info
Cc:
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:19:20 -0500
Subject: The authors of the Nāṭyaśāstra and the MahābhāṣyaProf. K. Nachimuthu was the former Chairperson of Center of Indian Languages (CIL) at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi and is the current Head of the Department of Tamil at the Central University of Tamil Nadu (CUTN) in Tiruvārūr, the Indian partner institution in the European Research Council-sponsored project entitled "Going from Hand to Hand: Networks of Intellectual Exchange in the Tamil Learned Traditions" (http://www.manuscript-cultures.uni-hamburg.de/netamil/images/network.png).Prof. Nachimuthu claims in a Tamil blog ( http://nirappirikai.blogspot.com/2010/11/blog-post_8125.html ) that the author(s) of the Nāṭyaśāstra, and Patañjali, the author of the Mahābhāṣya were Tamils. I would like to know if this view is shared by other Indologists.Thanks in advanceRegards,Palaniappan