Dear Malhar,

Bhaṭṭoji brings it close to 2.2.6 = SK 756, but it is still ad 6.3.73 = SK 758. It of course makes sense to mention the vārttika in connection with 2.2.6 and could have been added in copying the KV, perhaps under the influence of the Kaumudī grammars (I don't see it in the Rūpāvatāra). Since Jinendrabuddhi and Haradatta both discuss the vārttika ad 6.3.73, that's its original location in KV. Vasu's translation, which I think should be another possible source as it was out in full by the early 1890s, in fact mentions the vārttika twice, once ad 2.2.6 and once ad 6.3.73. 

https://sanskritdictionary.com/panini/?iencoding=iast&q=2.2.6&action=Search

https://sanskritdictionary.com/panini/?iencoding=iast&q=6.3.73&action=Search

All the Best,
Victor


On Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 8:19 AM Malhar Kulkarni via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Dear Professor Kapstein, 

I thank you very much for sharing this interesting discussion from the archives of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1906, to all. I also thank Victor Davella for sharing it to you. 

As I see with the limited access, this discussion involves the discussion on a vārttika on Aṣṭādhyāyī (A) 2.2.6. There is no clue about the source text, both the scholars are referring to. One source could be the text of the Kāśikāvṛtti (KV). The printed text of the KV that they could have access to, could be, perhaps, the 1876 edition. This edition has this vārttika on A 2.2.6, indeed! 

It is noteworthy however, that the Hyderabad edition of the KV does not have this vārttika in the main body of the text of the KV on A 2.2.6. Also the edition of the KV on A 2.2.6 published by me on the basis of 70 manuscripts does not have this vārttika in the main body of the text of the KV on A 2.2.6. 

Interestingly, the manuscript which is amongst those which added this vārttika in the main body of the text of the KV on A 2.2.6, seems to be one of the sources of the 1876 edition. 

with regards, 

On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 6:18 PM Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Many thanks to all who replied. I am grateful for the grammatical references. 
As others may be interested, i include here the link, kindly sent to me by Victor Davella, to an informative discussion about the issue between two of the warhorses of Raj-period Indology:


Matthew 



Sent from Proton Mail for iOS.


-------- Original Message --------
On Saturday, 10/11/25 at 11:27 Matthew Kapstein <mattkapstein@proton.me> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

In the 2500-line Prajñapāramitā i find expressions such as:

nâtra kiMcid vidhyate nâvidhyate, “here nothing is penetrated nor unpenetrated”.

So far as I can determine, in avidhyate the initial a can only be taken as privative. 
Is this uniquely a peculiar Buddhist usage?

thank you for your thoughts,

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology


--
Malhar Kulkarni,
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,
IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai-400076

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology