The Age of Patanjali by Pandit N Bhashyacharya
Download The Age of Patanjali by Pandit N Bhashyacharya...
e First Edition 1905 Reprinked 1915 ~
ITis well known that Patanjali was the author of the Mahäbhãshya, thegreat commentary on Psinini's grammar; and the author of the Yoga Sütras is also called by that name. Some scholars are in doubt as tothe identity of these two authors,andseveral Orientalists fix thedate of the Mahiibhäshya, each from his own standpoint, and varying from 250 B. c. t o 60 after Christ. The object of this paper is therefore to enquire into :-(a) tlhe probable date of Patanjali, the author of the Mahabhäshya, and ( b ) the ,supposed identity of the author of the Mahäbhãshya with that of the Yoga Sfitras. The name Patanjali is not of unfrequent occurrence inSanskritliterature. I n Brihadãranyaköpanishad a Patanjala of Kapigötra is mentioned : in Päraini's Ganapata the names Patanjali and Patanjala occur : Such R S Bohtlingk, Max Muller, Weber ancl Goldstiicker. 5t.h Adhyäya, 3rd and 7th Brahmanas, o r p. 163 of the Madras Edition of 108 Upanishads. 6th Adhygya, under Vartika of Siitra, I, i, 64 : also II, iv, 69. Throughout the essay quotations like I, i, 64,. refer t o the Adhyiizs, the Pãcla and the number of the Sütra-but never to Anhikas-of the Mahãbhãshya or the Ashtãdhyiiyi of P h i n i , as the case may be.
: 1 1 1
and the same naIrne (Patanjali) is also found in Siddhänta Kaumudi under the Vãrtika of Vararuchi, (also called Kätyäyana), Patanjali, the authorof the Mahabhäshya, was born at Gönarda, a tract of country in Cashmere, and his mother’s name was Gönika,’ and he refers to himself BS Gõnikäputra2 and Gönardiya ’; which the cornmentator (Kaiyata) explains as referring to Patanjali. In Purushöttamä,’s Lexicon4 he is called Gõnardiya, Bhäshyakära,Chürnikrit andPatanjali. I n Hernachandras Lexicon he is called Gönardiya, and Patanjali.’
From valuable and undisputed evidence furnished by Indian literature, we arrive at the conclusion that he also wrote the Yoga Sutrasandthathe lived about the luth century B.C. ; the dates given by the Western Orientalists,’ on the other hand, vary from 250 B.C. to A.C. 60 ; at anyrate tlheyhave decided that from theinternal evidence furnished by the Mah3,bhäshya itseif, Patanjali flourished after Buddha’s(Sskyamuni’s) Nirviina, which is fixed by them at 543 B.C. same as Pushyamitra of the Sunga family who began to reign about 178 B.C.
j ! j ,
p, 8, Nirnaya Sägara’s Edition (Bombay). I, iv, 51. I, i, 21. T r i k a n d a flëssha, p. 33 (Benares). p. 131, Edition. Calcutta
Note 1, page P.-I mayalso include the name of‘ Dr. Peterson of Bombay who thinks(inthe Indian Am%pary, Vol. XII, p. 353) that the Mahäbhäshya might have been written in the 2nd century A.C., for he makes the Pushyamitra mentioned in that work identical with one “ Pushyamitra,” who, he says, was defeated by Ska,ndagupia. As Skandaguptareignedabouttheend of the 2nd century, it follows that Patanjali livedabout that time. This is, however, replied t o by Dr. Bhandarkar, in the Same volume, saying thatthe inscription on which Dr. Peterson based hisargumentsmentions that Skandagupta defeated “ Pushiamitras 7 9 (and not “ Pushiamitran”) --.hich means “ the tribe of Pushiyamitra ’,. He supporta his own date (144-142 B.C.) which he gave previously (in the I n d i a n Antiquary, Vol. I, p. 299, et Seq.), on his supposition that the Pushyamitra of the Mahäbhäshya is the
By the by, Dr. Weber thinks ( I n d i a Au n t i q u a r y , Vol. II, p. 206) that “ Pushyarnitra ” is the correct form of the word ; and Dr. Bhändarkar, too, thinks the same (ibid, p. 59). Theformerthinks so, because the Jain
corruption is ‘‘ Pupphamitra,”andthustheoriginal Sanskrit word must be “ Pushpomitra ”. We regret we have t o differ from both, on the ground thatallthe MSS. of the Mahäbhäshya we have consulted invariably give ‘‘ Pushyamitra ” and not Pushpamitra. Note 2 and 3, paye %--Dr. Kielhorn thinks (Indiafi Antiquary, Vol. XIV, pp. 82-83) that ‘‘ Gönardiya,” and ‘c Gönikaputra ” do not apply t o Patanjali butt o some other grammarians. I n reply we should say thatKiyyata (already noticed) and his commentators explain that the terms do refer to Patanjali. ~
1 j 1
1 Bohtlingk (quoted by Weber) 250 B.C. ; Max Mülley. about 200 B.c.-vide his History of Ancient LSanskrit Literature, p. 244 ; Weber 140 B.C., to A.C. 60. ( I n d i a n Lzterature, p. 224) ; Goldstucker 140 B.C.-120 B.C, ( P ä n i n i , p. 234).
The reasons assigned by them for such a conclusion are as below when expressed in the plainest language : 1, In the Mahãbhãshya the “ Mouryas ” are mentioned ; they wereallBuddhistsaccording to the Buddhistic records. This Mouryan dynasty and its founder Chandragupta are mentioned in the Vishnu and other BurAnas ; and he is identical with Sandracottus ” who is said to have been, aceording t o Megasthenes, Strabo, etc., a contemporary of Alexander and Selencus.2 Hencehelivedabout the time of Chandragupta. 2. the In Mahiibhãshya, the invasions, by Yavanas, of Säketa or Oudh, and of the Mhdhyamikäs, a Buddhist sect, are mentioned : although he was not a n eye-witness, he could have seen them, as they took lace atthe time of the conlposition of thegreat commentary. Theterm ‘‘ Pavana ’’ applies to the Grecians, and hence the Grecian invasion is alluded ahiibhäshya was composed about
140,~.c., the date of the Grecian (or Græc6-Bactrian) invasion of Oudh by Menander. Again, the Mädhyamikäs were followers of Nägärjuna. This Nägärjuna lived, according to Northern Buddhists, 400 yearsafter,andaccording t o SouthernBuddhists, 500 yearsafter,Buddha’s Nirvana,whichtook place iu 477 B.C. accordingto the former, and 543 B.C. according to the latkor, This would place Nägärjuna between 37-43 B.C, The invasion of MZdhyamikäis having occurred during the time of Patanjali,hisdate would probably be about the time. 3. The Hall of one Chandragupta,’ who is said to havelivedabout 327 B.C., and that of Pushyamitra, (who was, according toRäjatarangini,ahistory of Cashmere, a Buddhist prince), as well as asacrifice by him are mentioned ia the Mahãbhãshya. 4, RãjntaranginimentionstheMahãbhãshyaand says that one Chandriicharya, himself a gramniarian, introduced its study into Cashmere when Abhimanyu
V, iii, 99. Max Müller’s Eistory of Ancient Samki-it Liteyataye,
pp. 297-298. HIP, ii, 101.
=ere Pänini lay-s down that the imperfect should be used when the speaker relates a past action belonging t o atime which precedes the present. Vararuchi observes that the imperfect is also used when t h e event related is o o t of sight, and at the same time famous but could be seen by the person who uses the verb. Patanjali adds t o this Vãrtikaof Vararuchi’s thefollowing instances with remark-“ Arunadyavana sfikätharn,”
“ Arunäclyavaao Mädhyamik,?n.” The ‘‘ Yavanas besieged (imperfect) Sãketa,” the “ Havanas besieged (imperfect) Mädhyamikäs.” Nere the commentators explain that Patanjali who uses these expression lived at that time, although not on the spot, when the Yavanas besieged Oudh and the Mädhyamikäs. Goldstiicker’s €’irnini, etc., p. 234. a I, i, 68. “ Chandragupta-sabha, P~shyamitra-s~,bha,~’ the Hall of Chandragupta, the Hall of Pushyamitra. s III, i, 26 ; IIÌ, ii, 101.
6 reigned in that country, which was in A.D. 40 (according to coins). Hencewearenot wrong in supposing thatPaniniand KätyByana lived in the begirznirzg of the 3rd century B.C., and Patanjali in the 3rd century B. C.^ 5. Hiouen Thsang says that Kätyäyana lived 300 years after the timeof Buddha, that is about 240 B.C. ; the KZtyäyana referred to is, therefore, Kätyäpna, author of the Värtika. If Katyäyana lived about 240 B.C., Patanjali, who quotes him, flourished about
200 B.C.’ 6. The Yoga Sütras of Patanjali containseveral Buddhistic views. Hence Patanjali flourished at any rate after Buddhism had sprung up. 7. BGdarByana refutes, in his Brahma Sütras (II,ii, 3), the Yoga system of philosophy. Hence Patanjali, the founder of the system of Yoga, flourished before Bädaräyana. Now as Panini alludes to the Brahma Sütras, and their author Päräsarya, it follows that Panini flourished after the time of Päräsarya or BädariZyana; and much more therefore Patanjali the author of the Mahäbhäshya. Thus we have two Pa,tlanjalis, one the author of the Mahäbhäshya, who flourished afterthe time of Bãdaräyana, and the Max Muller’s History of Ancient 8anskritLiterature, p. 244 ; also Weber’s History of Indiau Literafwe pp. 219-220 (Note). P.
Bohtlingk. IV, iii, 110, 111.
7 other, before the time of BgdarGyana, Their identity is therefore highly improbable. Let us examine the Mahgbhäshya andthe Yoga Sütras themselves and find out how farthesearguments are sound. I n reply to No. 1 of the arguments of the Western Qrientalists : I. The Mahãbhãshya says that the Mouryasl were makers and worshippers of idols, such as those of Siva, Skanda and VisRkha, and were begging from door to door, taking these idols withthem. If, according to the Buddhistrecords, the Mouryas had belonged to a royal family instead of beingbeggars, thenthese Mouryas mentioned in theBuddhist records must be quite different from those mentioned in the Mahkbhhshya.
V, iii, 39. I n India, atthe presentday,thereare several wandering tribes known variously by the names Dâsaris(Tamil),Guduguduppândy(Tamil),Budubudukalavädu (Telugu), Langãris (Hindustani). They, just like the “ Mouryas,” take on their heads sh smallalmirah,in which arekept wooden images of certain deities which they call Poturäju, Polëramma, etc., and unknown t o the Hindu Pantheon, coloured in divers ways, and varnished: some of them carry these images on their bosoms or hands.When they goa-begging, they recitecertainprayers tothe deities which the images represent, in a language which seems t o be an admixture of Telugu, Hindustani and dialects of the Indian gypsies or Chenchus (ahilltribe belonging t o Cuddapahand Kurnool Districts of the MadrasPresidency).They do not belong t o any of the Sndra classes, as the Velamas,
IE they had been Buddhists, they would not have beenworshippers of idols, and muchlessthose of Siva, Skanda and Visãkha. If the Aryans were worshippers of idols, he would havesaid so ; on thecontraryhealludesallalong inhiswork to the Aryanworship of the 33 Vedic Gods. It is therefore conclusive that when he speaks of the idolworship of the Mouryas, a non-Aryan tribe is meant. W e alsoknow thatthedescendants of Chandragupta, who were called Mouryas (from the fact that Chandragupta is called bythePuränas, Mourya, being the illegitimate son of Nanda, by Mura, a slave girl) were very famousBuddhists,forundertheir influenceBuddhism spread over Indiaandforeign countries, such as Ceylon, etc. and the Great Council by the name of Sangha convened,monasterieswere built and edifices constructed. It is therefore absurd to imargine that they begged from door to door and madesuch idols as those of Siva,Skanda,Visãkha, Hence the Mouryas who were poor and who earned their livelihood by (making and) selling images, were not a tribe in any way connected with the Mouryaa
who were ruling princes, such as Chandragupta, Asoka, etc. The old MSS. (of the Mallä,bhãshya) of the South make the allusion of making and selling idols apply notto Moozwyas but to Puw-as, a peculiartribe also mentioned in the Vishnu Puräna ; for example MSS. Nos. 31, 33 of the Adyar Library, whichare, on palæographical examination, found to be more than 3 and 4 centuries respectively, may be consulted. Pf I‘ Pouras ’’ be the right word, so much controversy about the allusion of PatanjalitotheMouryas will vanish at once. II. Regarding argument No- 2, we nmst carefully examine the termYavana. I t is of frequent occurrence in Sanskrit literature; and every Western Orientalist, from the time of Sir illialn Jones to that of ProfessorMax Müller, says thatit invariably implies the Greeks.Thisterm is derivedfrom the Sanskrit root yu-to mix or to be swift, implying a mixed or a swift race. It occursin Pånini,andKiityzyanasays inhis Vartikas, that when the “Alphabet of the Pavanas ’ B ismeant,the affix änuk ” shouldbeaddedtothe word “ Yavana,” and this becomes Yavanäni.Even granting for argument’s sake that Pänini lived in the
Maidus, Modëliars, Vellalars, etc , and are by their habits and customs exelusit-ely non-Aryans. These are known in India from a long time ; perhaps these tribes are the remains of the Mouryas of Patanjarli. Vide also Tandya Mahabrahmana, IV, 27, and Brihadranyaka 5th Adhyaya,9thBrahmana, Rig Veda, 8. 4. 28. 1, etc.
Amsa 4,ch. xxiv o r p. 326 (Madras Edition). IV, i, 49. Xiddhanta Kaumudi, p. 61, Bombay Edition. B
6th centuryB.C. according to Professor MaxMuller land certainly he lived several centuries c earlier-it is plain thatneitherPãnini norKátyãyana used the term c 6 Yavana ” in their works to mean the Grecian alphabet, for it, would not bave been introduced into India before the invasion of Alexandev in the4th century B.C. Dr. Goldstiicker thinksthat “ Yavanani ” signifies the cuneiform writing, and being peculiar in its cllaracter when comparedwith Sanskrit, it must’ have beenknown duringthe time of Pãnini, To show that the term is of frequent occurrence in Sanskritliterature, t.he followinginstances may be quoted : Manu says thatthe Yavanas, Kämbhöjas, etc., were originally Kshatriyas, but became outcastes by neglecting their Vedic duties, etc. 111 GautamaDharmaSutra,it is statedthatthe Yavanas are a mixed (Pratdöma) caste of Aryas. I n t8he Riimåyana of Viilmiki, ’ theterm Yavana occurs indieatmg a tribe who fought during the walof Visvamitra.The Mahäbhärata, whilegivingout
thegencalogy of the ancientkings,speaks of the Yavanas as the descendants of Durvasu, son of Yaygti. I n the Vishnu Purgna, it is stated, while describing the BharataVarslla or India,t’hatthe Yavanas live in the west, the Kirgtas in the east, and tlle four Indian castes i n the middle, of India ;and it is also said tbat the Yavanas were driven out by Sagara, a descelldant of Ikshvaku,tothe countries lyiug beyond the borders of India, after having shaved their heads (under the advice of Vasishta), althougll they were Kshatriyas.Further,the same Purãna, while giviug details of the future dynasties of Kali Yuga,” s i p that eight Yavanas will rule over India. Kãlidäsa in his Raghuvamsa describes the victories Qf Raghu over the Ssrasikas : and in so doing he mentions the ‘‘ Yavanis ” or Pärasika women. Most of the Smritis denounce the association of the Aryans with the Yavanas at the table as highly sinful. In Garga Samhita the -I’avanas are highly spoke11 of, for theirspecialknowledge of astrollonly alld astrology. ’ From KgsikävrittiandVishnu PurSna we learll thatit was the cnstorn among the Yavanas to get
Bistory ?f Amcie7zf; X a n s k r i t L i t e ~ a t u r e . PCl+z.i?az,p. 16. ch. X, v, 144, 45. Sacred Books of theEast, Vol. II. P a r t I, Ch. IV, v, 21. (p. 196). Edakiirzda, canto 55, verse 3 (p. 34, Madras Edition). 6 ddiparz?a,ch. lxxxv, 34 (p. 119, NIadras Edition). I 2
Amsa 2, ch. III v. 8 (p. 137, Madras Edition). Amsa 4,ch. VI, 20, 21. (p. 287, ibid.). Amsa 4,ch. XXIV, (p. 326, ibid.). * Book IV, v, 61, 62. p. S (Calcntta Edition) of the Nribat Ranlhita L
Chapter II, v, 15.
12 theirheads wholly shaved-a statement which the national custom of the Gresks could never sanction for when Demosthenes got his head shaved, he sought tQconceal himself in a cell in order that he might uot appearia public, andthathemight notbe therefore disturbed in his studies. ’ With reference to Dr. Goldstucker’ssupposition thatthe invasion of the Cræco-Bactrians under Nenander (asbout 144 B.C.) is meant, when Patanjali used theexpression ‘‘ the Yavanas besiegedSiikëtä (Oudh),” we should say that, according to the latest researches, Nenander never came to Oudh, but only up to the Jumna : and in order that he might come to Oudh he should have gone 300 miles eastward. ’’ That the Hindus apply the term \‘‘Yavana ’’ to all foreigners, not only Greeks, who wert. living west of the Indus, is plain from the foregoing quotations and considerations : also that the event which took place during the tirne of Patanjali is not identical with any of the Grecian invasions ; and that the identity of the Yavanas with the Greeks is purely imaginary, and to prove it no evidence is forthconîingfromrecords, Indian or foreign. Lemprière’sClassical Dictionary.Art. Demosthenes. Goldstucker’s P6ni?ai, p. 234. elide Dr. RäjëndFalälä Nitra’s T.rzdo-Arynn9 : CYmtributions t o w a d s t h e E l u c i d a t i o n of their Ancierd ami MedigVal Eistory. Vol. II, p. 193. * As an example of the tendency of the Hindus to give an indefinite name t o several foreign nations and tribes, I
13 Regarding the Fädhyamikäs, it is absurd to suppose that the Yavanas invaded and captured the individualsbelonging to a n idealisticphilosophical sect called by that name-especially when we consider may say that at the present day, any European nation, the English, the French, or any other, is generally termed 6‘ Hüna ” by the orthodox Brahmins. It also seems that $his has been the case from a longtime. The word Hüna is generally taken tomean “ white-skinned people The Bhägavata PurLi,na mentions “ the Hünas, Kirfitas, Andh~as,” etc., as having followed the teachings of Krishna, and thus become pure. 111 the Raghuvamsa of Kälidäsa (Canto 4, v, 69), “ HGna women,” are described. Vãmanäèhftrya mentions the Hünas in his Kävyälankãra Siitravrltti (written about the 12th century, according t o Weber) ; and Appiah Dikshita, who lived aboutthe16thcentury,quotesinhisChitra-mimämsa, awork on Rhetoric,the verses from Vãmanächärya’s Kävyälankära Sütravritti, which mention the word HiinasEvenVenkathcharya, wholived lastcentury, mentions in his Visvagunãdarsa (vv, 411, 414, 415, or p. 93, MadrasEdition)theEnglishandtheFrench as living near the Vishnu temple att Triplicane (Madras) ; and elsewhere he uses theterm(Yavana)tomeantha Mussalman(vv, 253, 254, p. 57, Madras Edit!ion). From all these one is naturally led t o suppose that the meaning of the word “ Huna,” like that of the word “ Yavaina,” graduallychanged from itsoriginal signification, and adapted itself to the times, meaningt h e particular nation or nations that each of these authors came in contact with. We also corne t o the conclusion, that in the same way the severalSanskritauthorsmeant t o describe-by the use of the term ‘‘ Yavana ”-the vmious foreigners they had known. If might have been applied t o the Persians when they invaded India ; after them t o the Greeks, then to the Bactrians ; and at last--also t o the Pathans and the Moguls.
contrary, one would naturally expect the Nädhyamlk6s to seek friendship with the Yavanas to make conirnon cause against the Hindus. Now the territory was bounded on the nortlh by the Hilnålayas, on t,he south by the Vindhya Mountains, on the east by Allahabad, and on the west, Vinasana, the place where the river Saraswati submerges underground, is calledMadhyad6sa.l ‘‘ Madhya ’’ and ‘‘ Madhyama,” being synonymous, the word “ Mädhyanlika,”means the people of Madllyadësa, andwhen Patanjali said “ theYavanas besieged theMadhyamikäs,”the expression would naturally imply that the foreign invaders who penetrated into IndiathroughthePanjabshould first attackthe country lying between Rajputana and Allahabad on iheir way to 8äket-a or Oudh ; and this explanation of OUTS is greatly strengthened when we find Patanjali himself explaining theterm Ilil%dhynmikä(Mädhyan1ikån) to mean “ people o r towns belong to Madhyadesa”. III. On carefullyexa,miningseveralold MSS. of the Mahabhäshya,writteniaTeluguandGrantha characters, we donot find any mention of Chandragupta’s Hall in I, i, 68 ; only Pushyamitra’s Hall is mentioned here and his name given el~ewhere.~ M a ? 2 ~ch. , II, 21. V, iii, 2 (Anhika). III, i, 26.
Dr. Kielhorn’sEdition of the Mahäbhsshyamay, in this connexion,beconsulted withadvantage.The Hall of Chandragupta occurs i n Dr. Rnllantyne7s Edition (p. 758). It is highly improbable &at the Greek “ Sandracottus,” who is said to have been a contemporary of Alexander and Seleucus, was identicaï with a Chandragupta, for he was one of the many Chandraguptas in Indianliterature. F o r example, there is one Chandragupta in theGuptadynasty,and also one Chaadrasri who lived long after the Cha,mdragupta, son of Nunda, by Mura, and after whom foreigners, such asYavanasandSakas,weresaid t o rulethe country.‘ Regarding Pushyamitra, Rajatarangini mentions a prince of that name as having ruled over the Bahlika country,whichisidentified by the Qrientalistswith the modern Balkh, tlhe birth-place of Zoroast’er ; and inthe Mahgbhäshya we readthat (‘Pushyanlitra performed a sacrifice,” and several Brahmins attended the sacrifice and assisted tlhe king. Now the boundaries of the aryävarta during the time of Pat-anjali were fixed from the Aravalli Hills to the RlackForest in Beklar, and the Aryans who Vishnfc Purann, Amsa, 4. ch. XXIV. III, i, 26 ; I I I , ii, 101. II, iv, 1; VI, iii, 109. The northern and southern boundaries were the Himalayas and t h e Päripathya Mountains (Vindhya).
16 lived in thistract were holy and superior. This Biihlika country wa*stherefore outside the Arykrarta, and henceaMlechhacountry, and no Aryan would enterit. Even the king himself could not have performeda sacrifice in a Mlëchhacountry,sucha thing being opposed to the Smritis; and the author of the MahSbhiirhya himself remarks that the goats of the Bhalika country are quite unfit for sacrificial urposes. I Or, if we suppose, according to the Western Orientalists, that he was a Buddhist prince, there is 110 reason t o think that he ever performed a sacrifice, and still less a Vedic sacrifice. ‘‘ Pushyan~itra”is the name of several Aryan kings, like Dasaratha, Dilipa, and Parikshit,as would appear from thePuranas. A Pushyamitra of Sunga family, who killed his master and established a throne, is mentioned in the Vishnu urana, and other Puranas; and his son, Agnimitlra, is thehero of Kalidasa’s drama,Malavikagnirnitra. This Pushyamitra performed an Asvanledha sacrifice, according to the same drama. But we should not ia any way be understoodasidentifying thePushyamitra cf the Mahäbh%shyawith th2 Pushyamitra>of either MälavikfLgnim~traor Riijatarangini. Patlanjali mentions in the Mahgbhäshya the Hall of Chandragnpt,a aswell as that of Pushyamitra. If,ou this basis, Chandragupta be considered as thecontemporary 1, i, 15 (p. 377-D1.
17 of Alexander and Seleucus, why should not Pushyamitra too be considered his (Alexander’s) contemporary ? Or, if one is mentioned by the Grecians, why not the other ? Now it will be easy to think that the only solution of the difficulty possible, with our present knowledge of the subject, is that, as itis quite common among grammarians, while giving illustrations tto the rulesto use such names as Dëvadatta,Yagnadatta, and Vishnumítra,’ andthese being well known as Brahminical names, and that such common narnes of kings should be added t o the expressions like ‘‘The Hall of-” and “-sacrifices,” such names as Chandragupta and Pushyamitra were chosen at random. IV. Räjatarangini is a work written by Kalhana Pandit in the 12th century after Christ, and is a compilation made by him from vague traditions current in his time.2 No reliance should therefore be placed on sucha work as this, and much less should it be consulted for the solution of ahistorical problem. The fact of Chandracharya’shavingintroduced the study of the Mahäbhashya into Cashmere in the Ist century A.C., does notnecessarilylead us tothe conclusion that Yatanjalilived only threecenturies These three mmes frequently occur in the illustrations of the Mahäbhãshya, something llke“ John comes,” “John goes,” wherenoreference is made to a particular John -much lessKingJohn of England o r S. John the Apostle. Such names are called Yäthrichhilca Sabdas. pp. 213, 214, Weber’s History of ImJian Litemture. c
before that time. One may as well argue that by the introduction in the 19th century of the study of the Vedas into German and English Universities, it may be supposed that the Vedas were written or compile& only two or three centuries ago ! V. From Stanislaus Julien’s translation of Hiouen Thsang’s travels; it is clear (a) that the Kiityäyana referred to by the Chinese traveller was a, Buddhist, whereas theauthor of theVartikas was a Brahmin, ( b ) thatthe Kätyiiyana of HiouenThsang was the author of a metaphysical work on Buddhism, which the traveller himself translated into Chinese, and (c) that, except in name, all the details given by Hiouen Thsang differ fromthose of Kätyãyana,the grammarian. Again, t o one of the Sutras of Pänini, Kãtyäyana, adds a Viirtika t o explain theterm Nirvana,” and says that it means “ t o blow out ”. Thereupon Patanjali explains by giving various illustrations, “the fire is blown outby the wind,” ‘‘the lamp is blown out by the wind.” etc. If Kiityäyana, or
Patanjali, lived dnring or after the life-time of Siikyamuni (as is supposed by some), surely they, as grammarians, would have noticed the Buddhistic interpretation of t,he word Nirvzna ” which is of the greatest importancein theBuddhistic philosophy ; but as they did not, we areatliberty t o say that neither of them lived after the introduction of Buddhism by Siikyamuni, which carried this peculiar interpretation. The name Katyäyana is also of frequent occurrence in Sanskrit literature. There is one KätyGyana, author of Kalpa,’ and GrihyaSûtras, and Xarvsnukramani who was a disciple of Xsvalgyana ; and the same name is also that of the author of several Parisishtas and a Prqtis%khya of Sukla Yajur Veda, while the author
Max Müller’s History of Ancient SanskritLiterature, pp, 305-9. VIII, ii, 50. M. Burnouf was the first t o create the misconception that L E NirvBna ” meantannihilation. The Paranirvana Sütra does not give that meaning even. Prof. Max Muller laboured, untilrecently,underthe same misconception. On the other hand Nirväna means with them (1) Negatively, state of absoluteexemption from the circle of
transmigration, state of entire freedom from all forms of existence, etc. ( 2 ) Positively,Nirvana is thehighest state of spiritual bliss, absoluteimmortalitythrough absorption of the soul into itself, but preserving individuality [so that, e.g., Buddhas after entering Mirvãna may reappea#r on earth]. P o r furtherparticulars see Beal’s Ctrtenn of Chinese 97cm$hwes, p. 192, and Dr. E. J. Eitel’s Hnndbook of Chinese Budtlhisrn, beinga Sanskrit Chinese Dictionary-(Hong-Kong, ISSS).
alludes t o several KalpaSütrasin IV, iii, disciple of Xounaka, and Kiityãyana theauthor of Kalpa SGtras, andas Prätisäkhya was a disciple of Asvaläyana.All thePrãtisãkhyas differ inmanyrespectsfrommany of Piinini’s rules. Hence the Mätyãyana who was theauthor of a PrAtisäkhya,and KalpaSütras, etc., wasanterior to
106, Äsvaläyana was a
of the Vãrtika on Pånini is also called by that name.‘ The Malläbhashya mentions a poem of Kätyäyana’s, and from it we find that he was also called Vararuchi. It rnay perhaps be the case that the several persons called by the name of Kätyãyanaweredescendants
of one andthe same Rishi,” and livedinaifferent times and wrotedifferent works : even Mahgkätygyanai, a disciple of Buddha, and Kätyiiyana, the author of a work on Buddhist met,aphysics (translated by Hiouen Thsang) might havebeenlinealdescendants of one and the same original Kätyäyana Rishi. VI. It is not necessary to dwell much in reply to the sixth, as several points involved were traversed in our reply to the fifth argument, by giving important quotations from Panini, Kätyâyana,2 a,nd PatSnjali, in which the word “ Nirviina ” is mentioned ; and there we have shown that Patanjali was not awaye of the Buddhistic interpretation of that word. Patanjali in his Yoga SGtras mentions the Ïsrvara,’ and speaks of the necessity of the study of the Vedas, a,nd uses a word Kaivalya,” different from Nirvgna,” to signify the same idea.
According Kathãsärit to Sãgara of Somadëva, Kätyäyana studied along with Panini, and with Vyiidi, the grammer of Indra under Upavarshoptidhysya in Pãtaliputra ; and he was born in Kousãmbi, a town on the banks of the Jumna, somewhere near Agra ; his father’s name was Söma,datta, of Sankriti Gotra and his mother’s name Shnüttara.The name “ Upavarsha ” is not only peculiar t o Kathãsärit Sägara, but also t o lexicographers ; vide p. 131, Hëmachandra’s Lexicon (CalcuttaEdition) and Purushõttama Deva’s Trikãndasësha, p. 33 (Benares Edition).Upavarsha was acommentator on Jaimini’s Parva Mimämsa Sutras, and Bãdaräyana’s Brahma Sutras; his works are quoted by Sabaraswami in his commentary on Jaimini’s (p. 12,CalcuttaEdition, A. S. B.)andby Sri Sankarãcharya in his commentary on Brahma Sutras (pp. 291, 953, CalcuttaEdition of Asiatic Society of Bengal). IV, iii, 116. of Lingfinusasnnn Thereis one Vararuchi,author (rules of gender) who is said to have lived in the Court of one Vikramäditya as would appear from the lastverses of his work (Benares Edition). The ,7yotiruid~‘lbhurana, theauthorship of which is erroneously attributed t o Kälidãsa, mentions a Varararuchi as having lived in the Court of the said Vikramäditya. Vt%yugunitn, otherwise called Gil.nasrë~adlzivdkya,a work on‘ Astronomical tables(according t o the system of Aryabhätta), and on which the calculations of Vfikyapunchdngam (calendar, according t o the system of V6Fcyagunita) of South India are based, is said t o be the work of one Vararuchi who lived in the 6thcentury A.C. From these one may naturally conclude khat the Kätyäyana who WW
the author of the Vãrtika, etc., cannot be identified with any other Kãtyäysna 01- Vararuchi. According t o a well known rule of grammar, all the descendants of a “Kätyäyana’’rnay be calledby that name. Kätyãyana: the author of the VArtika on Panini, of the poem Varnzcch~r, and of the Slökas called Bhrdja (Mahäbhãshya, 1st A uhikn, pp. 23-24, Ballantyne’s Edition) is altogether difereni from the author of Kalpa Sutras, Prãtisäkhya, etc., and who is also called Vararuchi (T?-ikdn,dasësha, Slöka 85, page 33, Benares Edition) ; and the same person by the names of Medhãjit, and Punarvrtsu (p. 131 of Rënzncha?zdya’s Lexicon, Calcutta Edition). I, 23, 24, 26.
II, 1. IV, 25-33,
The theories of Karma,Re-incarnation,etc., are quite common not only t o the Buddhists, but to all the Asiatic philosophies, except, perhaps, the Jews ; and hence there is no reason to suppose that these theories were only borrowed from the Buddhists and introduced into Hinduism. It has been argued that the doctrine of Ahimsa or ‘(not killing,” is peculiar to the Buddhists, and against the doctrine of the Vedas, and that thisis found in the Yoga Sütras, and hencethat these Sütras were written after Buddhism had sprung up. To this, we reply, that the performance of sacrifice-and hencekilling of animals for sacrificial purposes-is enjoined only on Grihasthas (married men), but not on Brahmachãris (bachelors) or Yatis(ascetics). The ruleslaid down in the Yoga Sütras do not apply t o Grihasthas, but only to Naishtika Brahmacharis (those bachelors who wish to remain as such throughout their lives), Vänaprasthäs (those that go to forests wit-h theilwives for the purpose of meditation), or Yatis (ascetics) -more especially thelast named order also those Viinaprasthgs who practise Yoga should not perform sacrifices. VII. In reply to the seventh argument we should say that Patanjali was not the founder of the Yoga system of philosophy. Hiranyagarbhar,aMaharishi, was the founder of this system: and it was promulgated
by his successors, Vãrshaganya, YGjnavalkya, etc., as Âsuri, Panchasikaandothersdid in the case of Sänkhya foundedbyKapilaNeither the Erahma, Sütras nor the more famous of its commentators, such as S’ri Sankarãcharyaandothers mention by name any philosopher of the Yoga school.’ The expression in the Brahma $ütras is : ‘‘ The Yoga philosophy is condemned on the same reasons as are given in the previous Sutra regarding Sãnkhya.“ The Sãnkhya and Yoga philosophies are inadmissible for ( a ) the philosophies themselves arein contradiction with thedoctrine of theTedas(Upanishads) ; ( b ) the authority of the Vedas are superior t o these philosophies ; ( c ) the founders of these philosophies, v&., Kapilaand Hiranyagarbha,are human beings, and hence their knowledge must be finite and subject to errors, and even opposed to reason in several points; and ( d ) on the otherhand, the i3ruti (Vedas) is invariably followed by the majority of the sages. Again, $’rï Sankarâchärya in his commentary on the above Sutra quotes an aphorism, which does not belong to Patanjali’sYoga Sütras, as will be found to be
VãchaspatiMisra, a commentator on Vygsadëva’s Bhäshya OM Patanjali’s Yoga Sütras,explains the word
‘6 Anusa,sana ” in the 1st aphorism (Atha Yogänusãsanam) thus ‘‘ The doctrine of Poga had been founded by Hirallyagarbha and others, Batan jali simply promulgated it, by supplementing it, and hence it is called ‘Anusäsannm ’.” S’ri Rarnänujãchärya mentions Hiranyagarbha by name in p. 4’76, Madras Edition, of his, Bhäshya, II, ii, 3.
24 the case on an examination of that work : but it must either belong toHiranyagarbha or Värshaganya? The definition of “ Yoga ” given in the Sutra quoted by Srï Sankariichärya is that “ it is the means of knowledge of the realities (or truth),” whereas Patanjali defines it in hisaphorisms ’ as “ the suspension of the action of the mind Two verses from Hiranyagarbha’s work are quoted in the Vishnu Puriinas; and Viirshaganya is mentioned by Vächaspati Misra in his Bhãmati, a commentary on S’ri Sankarschärya’s Tediinta Sütra Bhäshya. Y ä g n a d k y a promulgated the same systeminhis Yogäyiignavalkyagïtä, from which various quotations appear in maxy philosophical and other treatises. Fron1 these considerations it will be seen that the Yoga system was not founded by Patanjali and that
VedantaSutraBhäshya,CalcuttaEdition(Asiatic Society of Bengal), p. 496. I, 1, 2. Amsa, 2, ch. xiii, VI-.42-45 (p. 195, Madras Edition). * p. 332, Benares Edition. Vyåsadëva (also called Vyäsa or Vedavyäsa) author of a commentary on Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, is generally supposed to be identical with Vedavyåsa, the author of the Mahäbhqrata, the Brahma Sutras, etc. ; and that he, therefore,alluded t o hissysteminhisBrahmaSutras. If it had Ineen written by ,Vedavyãsa(theauthor of Brahma Sütras) it would have been mentioned in Räjamãrtånda by Bhñjadëva who, every one knows, lived after him ; nor would S’ri Sankarächnrya or S’ri Rämitnujächärya have neglected it witzhoutmakinganyquotations from it. In Rajamartanda there is noallusion to any former
it (the Yoga system) existed from a long time before Patanjali, that he was simply an author of a work on Ohat philosophical system;andthat helived after the times of Panini and B:idarl?yana. It is argued that the systems of philosophy taught in the Yoga Sutrasandthe Mahhbhäshya are in opposition wit,h each other, and that one author could notwrite two suchdifferentworks,inculcating two antagonistic philosophlcal systems. Even certain contradictory passages are brought forward to prove that such is the case; t,o give a few of such contradictions :-(a) That the Mahäbhåshya advocates sacrifices of animals, and even rernarks that the goats of the Bahlikacountry are not fit for sacrifice, and knows nothing of Buddhism : on the other hand the Yoga system inculcatesthe doctrineof “ Ahilnsa ” in general,’ which is themainstay of Buddhism, and even the killing of animals for sacrificial purposes is prohibited, although sanctioned in the Vedas : ( b ) Toga describes commentary or Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. Vächaspati Misra mentions one Vedavydsa,commentator on these Yoga Sutras, and there can be no doubt that this “ Vedavyäsa” was quite a modern author, and is in no way connected with the author of the Brahma Sutras. P o r the name is of frequent occurrence.One Vayasächarya is the authora of a gloss on S’ri Rämãnujåchãrya’s Bhäshya 011 the Brahma Siitras ; also the name of a work called Chanchika, on the Dwaita philosophy of S’ri MadhavächåryaisVyäsaor Vyåsarãya, --besides the fact that a large number of the followers of S’ri Madhvãchbrya are mlled by that name . I, i, 15 (p. 81, Renares Edition). II, 30, 31, 34, 35.
h v a r a I (God), andenunlerat,es His attributes;whereas the Mahäbhashyabelievesln a resultproducedby sacrifice, and considers that result to be the ultimate one, as advocat8edby Jaimini, in hisPürvamim5jmsa, and by several ot)her Tägnikas. It should be observed that Patanjali in hls Mahäbhishya followed the system of Yãniai, Kätyfiyana, and VyGdi (their commentator) ; alsoone Kuni with whom he agrees on severalpoints. It would alsoseem thatin his ‘C great commentary,” Patanjali followed the systenls of severalgrammariansantJeriortoPänini,suchas Apisali,Bhiiradwäja, and Gsrgya, as will beseen from his allusions to them. Further there are severalquest’lons regarding which he does notgive any opinionwhatever, but simply givesthose of various granlnmrians,
One thing is certain, namely, that while he is t h e author of the Yoga Sutras, he follows the system founded by Hirallyagarbha,-Vãrshaganya and YagnavSilkya : and while he is a commentator on a grammatical work, he cannot follow any philosophical system opposed toit ; in other words, he simply worksout the subject hewritesupon as though he belonged to that system,and no other. This is the case with every Indian who writes treatlses on different philosophies, and examplesmay be mult8iplied; for one, Vächaspati Misra, mas t h e author of a commentary on Yoga Siitra R h ~ s h y a ,on Nygya Siitra Bhäshya of Pakshila Swami, andthe Vãrtilra of Udyötakarächärya, and of Bhiimati 011 S’rí Sankarãchä-rya’s Vedänta Sutra Khgshya. He never adopted m his works one uniform system of philosophy, and no one codagenerally do so. This practicecontinues the to present day, when we find the late ProfessorTãränäthaTarkavachaspatiastheauthor of “Notes on the Yoga Sutra Bhashya of VyRsa, andthecommentarythereon by Vächaspati Misra,” “Notes on Vätchaspati Misra’s commentary 011 Sãinkhyakarika,” and of ‘‘ Siddhäl7tabindusäPa,” work a on Vedãnba. If we judge him from his work on Yoga’, he will appear as a follower of thatsystem; if we
‘r, i, 24-6. Ist Anhike.
‘’ p. 43. Ballantyne’sEdition : Vyãtdi was theauthor of Sangraha,the comment8nry, whichcontains 100,000 granthas of 32 syllables each. Kiyyata on I, i, 175 (pp. 87, 88. Bdlantyne’s Edition). III, i, 81, 71.---vide III, ii, 15, regarding *,he meaning of Parõksha (past time o r behind the sight) ; III, i, 27, about Varthamänakãla (present tense). IV, iii, 105. Kãtyãyana in his Vãrtika on this Sfitpa mentions Yagnavalkyn. Patanjali alsoches the Sanle in his Xahäbh­a,. Hence Yãgnavalkya must he anterior to Patanjali. +
Vignãmbhikshu anci BIädhävächärya were also authors of several works on different philosophicd systems, such as the Nyãyn, the Mimämsa, the Sãnkhya, and the Vedänta.
28 judge him onlyfrom his work on Sgnkhya,he will appear a Silnkhya, and from his Siddhåntabindusåra will appear as a Vedäntin. Hence from the fact that bwo differentsystems of philosophg are taught, one in the Mahiibhäshya, and the other in theYoga Sutras, it is not right to say t,hat the authors of these two works are not identical. So far as the Hindu Pandits are concerned, they would not for a moment believe that there were two different persons known by the name of Patanjali, one lof whom wrote the Mahãbhgshya, and the other the Yoga Sutras ; for if the tradition handed down from generation to generation in the line of teachers, and which is current among the Pandits, is to be belaeved, no one will hesitatetodeclarethattheauthors of these twoworks are identical.TheMahãbhiishya cannot be read by a Brahmin without Rãnthi, a ceremony performed under the auspices of a proper teacher, justas in the case of thestudy of VedsntaSutra Bhåshyaandothersacred works.Thisprinciple is 1 Although the Mahäbhäshya is it grammaticd work, it should be noticed that it also teaches a system of philosophy .of.grammar ; and without the studyof such a system, Pãnml coulcl n o t be properly understood. A follower of the School of S’ri Sankarächärya will, 011 opening his Bhäshya, first chant a Vedic Mantra, then a, Sanskrit verse in praise of the great philosopher (and such is the case with all the Sutras and Gitãbhäshyas), followed byreciting verses in praise of thelongline of teachers that succeeded himandendingwith one of his own teachers.Thereisasimilar customamong the
29 followed by everyBrahminthroughoutthelength andbreadth of Bhãratavarsha,fromTravancoreto the northern extremity of Cashmere and from Lahore to Dacca.Duringtheperformance of the Sãnthi of the Mahä,bh%shya, the following verse should invariably be chanted by the student at thefirst opening of the book forthe day, and in the presence of his teacher;andthestudy of the work is condemned when this Sãnthi is not performed. This verse, vix., ‘‘ Yog6na Chittasya padena virchgrn, nlalam sarirasya cha vaidyakha, Yopä,kariiththam pravaravn muninäm, Patanjalim prBn jaliränatthösmi, ’’ means, “ I bow withfoldedhandstoPatanjali who purified the rnmd of its impurities by (writing a work on) Yoga, the voice of its impurities, by his gramnlar (Mahäbhäshya), the physical body of its impurities by his work on Medicine, and who was superior to all the sages (of his time).” Let u s try to fix the date of Patanjali. During his tinze Sanskrit was the onlylanguagespoken in the Aryävarta, and this is evident from the fact that in the Mahäbhäshya we find a conversationbetweena Srivaishnaväs at the commencement of the study of Sr: R,ämänuj&chãrya’s Brahma Sütrabhãshya and other sacred works. Bhbjadëva followed the example of Patanjali, by writon threesubjects. On Yoga, inglikehimthreeworks we have his Räjamãrtãncla, a commentary on Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras; on Grammar, Sabdaprakäsika; and on Medicine, Råjamrigänka.
charioteerandhismaster,aBrahmin, examples of different modes of pronunciation of some words by peoplelivingindifferent parts ’ of the Aryävarta, differencesingivingmeanings to roots by those bhat live in countries beyond Indus, such as the Kambhijjas, et,c., and certainprovmcialismswhich are strictly condenlned in the Mahiibh5ishya. During the time of S%kyamuni,on the other hand, t,he spoken language was Päli--the language used by him i n addressinghis disciples. The tradition goes un to say that Be first began his address in Sanskrit, but 011 one of his disciples reminding him of the fact hllat the previousBuddhasusedintheiraddresses only the Pali language, he too addressed then1 in the same tougue.4 Eteligion during the time of Patanjali was almost entirely Vedic. Vedic: doctrineswere followed, and we hadthe Yiignika? and Brahnlavädias. Inthe MalGbhäshya, we find the Ar-yävarta described,’ the purityand wisdom of the Aryans extolled, and
drunkenness condemned ; sinincludedevenwrong pronunciation of words,’ although he admitsthat certain words had 110 regular way of pronunciation, but the general usage of the Aryans should be followed;Sishtâ,chära3(usage or custom among the elders)described,andstrongly recommended to be followed : purityandcondition of theBrahmins delineated.‘ If allthesepointsbeconsidered,it is quiteclearthattheauthorityand customs of elle Brahmins were in their full sway. When Buddhism was preached by Säkyamuni, the decline of Brahminical authority was so great, Brahminical customs, sacrifices, etc., so muchneglected and evenridiculed, andVedicauthority so much defied, that there were 1,350 BuddhistBhikshus in
II, iv, 56. I n I, i, 75, the modes of pronuuciation by the Easterlls are given ; for those of the Northerns see VII, iii, 46 , and several other places besicles. Vide 1st Anhika (p. 62, Ballantyne’s Edit8ion). * Dr. Mason’s Knchcllyano’s Pbli Grammar, p. 13. The country bounded on the north by the Himalayas, 011 the south by the Vindhyas (Päriyätra), on the west bx the Aravalli Hills, and on the east by the Black Forest: in Behar, VI, iii, 109.
2ndÄnhika, p. 100, Ballantyne’sEdition,and i11 various other pla.ces. 1st Änhika, pp. 12, 18 to 22 (Ballantyne’sEdition). 2nd Änhika, pp. 122, 123 (Ballantyne’s Edition). * II, ii, 6. “ These (Brahmins) are devoid of ambition, of no motives, possess knowledge and are not too rich ” ; also ‘‘ One who is austere, of good education, of brown colour,andreddishhair.” I n VI, iii, we find himdescribing a Brahmin of his times as one ‘’ m7holives in the -4ryävarta, who lives without keeping anything for the next day, not covetous, and (practises) very good morals withoutanymotives,and is pure.” H e elsewheresays (IV, i and II, ii, 6) that all these qualities go to make up a real Brahmin, and every one else is a Brahmin only in name. The state of morality generally was so good that he condemns every now and theu the practice of drinking (Suräpäna).
India.’These changesinreligion,and especially i n areligionprofessedbythosetlhat are termed “ the greatest conservatives,”-these changes (which were of so destructive a character) would atthe lowest estimation require 300 years intervene. to If GautamaBuddha,andBuddhaBhikshus could be found in India about 570 B.C.,there is nothing extraordinary in placing Patanjali three centuries earlier, that is, 870 B.C.,in ot,her words between the 9th and 10th centuries B.C. ; although the changesof language would necessitate our placing hin1 even earlier. Our argument is greatly strengthened if we base our reasoning on the chronology of the Chinese, who believe that the Nirväaa of Stikyamuni took place in 949’ or 9733 B.C., instead of in 543 B.C., following the chronology of the southern Buddhist,s,who follow the Mahavansa supposed to have been written about A.C.4 459. If the Chinese chronology were again seriously consideredin thelight of a vastliterature of t’he Chinese, now accessible to the Western Orientalists,
the cc decisions’’ of the various Orientalists, carefully reviewed, the datesof the Western Orientalists, which are considered tobe final on thesubject of the Nirvåna of Såkyamuni, may falltotheground, The discussion of the dagteof Nirvåna cannot fiEd a place in a brief article to a monthly magazine, on the “ Age o€ Patanjali ” ; and a full treatment of r;he subject o€ the presentpaperwithits allied questions, cannot receive any justice except in a volume. To state our conclusions once moTe €or the sake of clearness ( a ) , Patanjali was the author of the Mahäbhäshya, a commentary on Panini’s Ashtâdhyäyi, and also of the Yoga Sûtras, and ( b ) that he lived without any doubt between the 9th and10thcenturies B.C.,’ that is, about the loth century B.C. Geszeral Renza&s.-The mode o€ treatment of Orientalquestions by the Western Orientalistsis so unique, and so prejudiced, that we cannotrefrain from quoting the following :
Sukhãvativyüha the in Mahãyãna Sütra. This number is only of learned Bhikshus. The work (Mahäyäna Sütra) sa,ys thatthere were many more preseut (&!e page 1, Tokio Editicin). Dr. E. J. Eitel’s Sa,nskrit-Chinese Dictionary-a handbook of Chinese Buddhism, p. 139 (Hong-kong,
Bed’s Catencc of Chinese Scriptures, p. 116 (note). Max Müller’s Histol-y of Anciewt h7anskrit Literature, p. 267.
The arguments of Mr. T. Subba Row Garu relating to, the age of Patanjali, which made Patanjali identical with Govindaswamy, the Guru of S’ri Sankarachärya, are quite baseless, beinglncontradictionwith theinternal evidence delivered from original works, such as the Mahäbhäshya, S’ri Sankiirxchärya’s Vedanta Sutra,bhashya, etc. (cide The T h e o b o p h L b f , Vol. IV, p. 309-12). We can give brilliant illustrations. Just imagine “ whileincapable of understanding even the easy rules of Pãnini,and much less those of Kätyäyana, and still making use of them in the understanding of classical texts. The errors in his department,
“ Thewritings of many of theseOrientalists are oftencharacterisedbyanimperfectknowledge of Indianliterature, philosophy and religion and of Hindutraditions, and acontemptuousdisregardfor
the opinions of HinduwritersandPandits.Very often facts and dates are taken by these writers from the writings of their predecessors or contemporaries, on the assumption that they are correct, without any further investigation by themselves. Even when a writer gives’a date with an expression of doubt as to its accuracy, his follower frequently quotes the same dateas if it were absolutelycorrect.” * * “ III. It is often assumed without reason that every passageinthe Vedascontaining philosophical or metaphysical ideas must be looked upon as a subsequent interpolation, and that every book treating of a philosophicalsubjectmustbe considered ashaving been written after the time of Buddha, or after the commencement of the Christian era. Civilisation, philosophy and scientific investigation had their origin, in the opinion of these writers, within the six or sevencenturiesprecedingtheChristianera,and mankind slowly emerged for the first time from ‘ the depths of animalbrutlality ’ within thelastfour or five thousand years. “IT. It is also assumed that Buddhism was brought into existence by GautamaBuddha.Theprevious existence of Buddhism, Jainism and Arhat philosophy is rejected as an absurd and ridiculous invention of the Buddhists and others, who attempted thereby to assign a very high antiquity to their own religion. I n consequence of this erroneous impression every Hindu book referring t o the doctrines of the Buddhists is
of dictionary are so numerous and of so peculiar a kind -yet on the whole so thoroughly in accordance with the specimens I have adduced from his commentary, that it will fill every serious Sanskritist with dismay, whenhe calculatesthe mischievous influence which theymust exercise on thestudy of Sanskrit Philology.” (Pdnini and his pluce in Sanskrit Literature, by Tho. GoldStücker, p. 254.) Dr. Roth writing his Forterbuch (Sanskrit Dictionary), which is described by Goldstücker ( P h i n i , p. 251) in this way : “ 1 will merely here state that I know of no work which has come before the public with such unmeasured pretension of scholarshipandcriticalingenuityas this Woyterbuch, and which has, at the same time, laid itself open to such serious reproaches of the profoundest grammaticalignorance ”-explains Vedic words, and “ has courage to passs sweeping condemnation on all those gigantic labours of the Hindu mind (e.g., Siiyanbchãrya’s Bhäshya)whileignorant of all but the merestfraction of them.” Professor Kuhn, who issaid t o be “ no proficient in Ban~krit,~’ wasasked t o give his own opinion of the Worterbuch, and of course praised the:work very highly. Prof. Weber rushes into the stamgeat once, and warmly defends it againstevery one. A detailedcriticism on t h e “ vain labors ” of these “ Saturnalia of Sanskrit Philology ” will be found in Goldstiicker’s Pdnini, His Place in Xanskrit Literature, pp. 241-268. Prof.Weber himself acknowledges, althoughnot in t h e plainestlanguage, that hehad,whilelecturing on Indian Literature, made only a superficial study of t h e “Mahãbhäshya (History of Indian Literatwe, p. 224, note).
36 declared to have been written subsequent to the time of Gautama, Buddha. Por instance, Mr. Weber is of opinion that Vyäsa, the author of BrahmaSütras, wrote them in the fifth century after Christ. This is indeed a startling revelation t o the majority of Hindus. “V. Wheneverseveralworkstreating of various subjects a,re attribut,edto one and the same author, by Hindu writings or traditions, it is often assumed, and apparently without any reason whatever in the majority of cases, that the said works should be considered asthe productions of differentwriters. By this process of reasoning they have discovered two Bädariiyanas (Vyäsas) . . We do not mean to say that in every case identity of name is equivalent to identity of personality. But we cannotbutprotest against suchassumptions when they are made withoutany evidence t o support them, merely for the purpose of supportingaforegone conclusion or establishing a favorite hypothesis. “ We have enumerated these defects in the writings of European Orientalists for the purpose of showing to our readers that I t 1s not always sa,feto rely upon the conclusions arrived at by these writers regarding the dates of ancient Indian Eistory.” Professor Bhandarkar, who was present in Vienna on the occasion of one of the International Congresses The TJzeosophist, Vol. IV, p. 304, et seq.
37 of Orientalists, and who had therefore an opportunity of becoming personally acquainted withmany Western Orientalists, says in his lecture delivered ia Bombay i n 1878 ’ after his return Erom Europe, that tlhe socalled (‘Sanskrit Professors ” of the West,possess only so much knowledge of Sanskrit as to enable them t o translate into their own languages works written in Yuränic, but not in a more difficult style (e.g., that of Siibara’s Bhäshya on the Mimämsa Sützas, S’ri Sankar~ichärya’s Bhäshya on the Brahma Sütras, Tatwachint5manil of Gangësöpãdhyãya, or the works of Udayanächärya). Our own impression is that most of then1 (Western Orientalists) areacquainted only with the names of philosophical and other works, and if at all they have studied those works, it is only very superficiaZZy ; and hence it is quite natural that they should conunit errors and fallacies in their writings. ‘Onthe other hand, the Hindu Pandits study their own literature systematically under a well-trained teacher, who is one in the long line of teachers, each of whola iransmitsthe doctrines andtruthsto his successor who is below him in the list. But unfortunately they d o n o t possess any knowledge of any of the western languages, such as English, French and German, in whichtreatisesandotherpublicationsrelating to SanskritLiteratureand istory are written. B u t if once the ideas and mode of thinking of the Orientalists i V i d e the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society f o r P887.
38 are made known to them, they will produce wonderful results. It is a matter of deep regret that our Indian graduates do notgenerally possess anenterprising spirit, and are indifferent t o furthering the progress of the study of Sanskrit, especially works like the Mahiibhgshya. They generally depend,owing t o their ignorance of Sanskrit, for their information, on western translations, or western compilations fromSanskrit works. These unfortunate circumstances attendanton the Indianpeople can only be remedied by our University students continuing, with tjhe aidof good Pandits, their Sanskrit studies-more especially of the Vedas, Srauta Sütras, etc.-even after obtaining their degrees. Our Western Orientalists would do well, before becoming Professors of Sanskrit in the west’ern Universities, t o come toIndia, and systematically study’ the Sanskrit, language, and its literature in all its branches under well-known Pandits or in the Sanskrit Colleges or institutions established in India, viz., those of Benares, Calcutta or Mysore. Professor Max Müller feels this necessity more in the study of Piirvarnirnämsa than that of any other system of philosophy or subject, as may be seen by his letter t o the late Mr. M. M. Kunte, dated 21st June 1877 : .. “ But to the scholar the Pürvamirnãmsa is of great interest, and I havealways thoughtthat we wantedanative Indian scholar t o translateand properly interpret it. It is so full of allusions to Yãgnika matters which are familiar to your Srotriyas, but [of which] we in Europe have a very vague and indistinct eonception.” Professor Bhandarkar, too advocated this step in his lecture in Bombay in 1887.
39 One word more. Our EuropeanOrientalists wilE confer a great boon o n Indian Panditmaif they (Orientalists of Europe) would take the troubleof expressing in the Sanskrit language theirviews regarding Indian antiquity and literature in order that the Panditsmay become more easily acquainted with their views ; f o r ít is a more difficult thing for Pandits t o learn three European languages,cdz., English, German and French, for knowingwhat theEuropean Orientalists think aboutthemand the Indian literature, than for the Orientalists themselves-who are mostly Professors, of Sanskrit, teaching that language t o many University students-to write in Sanskrit.
T k E ADYAR PAMPHLE7.S Vol. I I 1 .
Elementary Lessons on Karma. The Fundamental Idea of Theosqphy,
AFJNIEBESANT BHAGAVAN DAS
H. S. OLCOTT
of Buddha and Its Lessons.
Light of Theosophy,
SUBBA RAOAND NOBINBANNERJI
The Future' Socialism.
Oecultism, Semi-Occultism and Pseudo-Occultism, ANNIEBESANT 9 The Law of Cause and Effect. C. W. LEADBEATER i
Printed by Annie Besant, at the Vasantii Press,Adyar.
_Aspects of the Christ.
The Spirit of Zoroastrianism.
H. S . OLCOTT ANNIE BESANT
The Bratherhood of Religions. '
Some Difficulties sf the Innep Life. ANNIE BESANT i he Yision of-the Spirit. c. JINARA3ADASA * Yegetarianism in the Eight of Theosophy. ANNIEBESANT Corsespondenees between the Planes. Da. VANH-OOK, %heInfluence of the East on Religion. R. HEBER NEWTON I&. ANNIEBESANT T. SUBBA RAO ANNIE C. W. LEADBESANT BEAT^^^ I
Englaad T L I ~ and-Pndia. ~ u of~ T n ~~ ~e ~ on s the o ~ ~ an Y
,./ ~ . d