Indian Antiquary Vol 02

SR No.: 032494
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jas Burgess
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 428
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 20 MB

Page 228

208
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JULY, 1873.
is a pagsago in the Mahdbhdshya: Mathurayah Pâtaliputram püroam, which gives us just the opposite direction, as it implies that Pataliputra was situated between the speaker and Mathura: the speaker therefore must have lived to the cast of the former. It is true that Bharu!årkar overcomes this difficulty by translating these words by "Pataliputra is to the cast of Mathura," but I doubt very much the correctness of his translation of purvam in this case, as Patañjali states it expressly as his purport to give an example, where purva stands in the sense of vyavahita, i.e. of distance (not of direction). How are we now to account for two so contradictory statements ?" na hyeko Devadatto yugapat Sraghne Mathurayari cha sambhavati." One might resort to taking them as a proof that Patañjali had visited dif- ferent parts of India while he was writing the Mahábháshya, and that one passage comes from a time when he lived to the west, the other from a time when he lived to the east of Pataliputra, as there may have been, according to Bhandarkar him. self in his first article, vol. I. p. 301), also a time when he lived in this town. Or, we might take one or the other passage as one of those which have crept into his work under the remodelling which it underwent by Chandracharya dibhin (p. 58). Or wo may waive that question altoge. ther. Thus much remains : we cannot rely on either of them for attaining to certainty about Patanjali's dwelling place, far less, as Bhandarkar takes it, about his native place. The only support for this latter supposition is his explanation of the name of Gonda by Gonarda; but in giving it he has failed to give attention to the statement of the Kárika (though he mentions it) which adduced Gonardiya as an instance of a place situated in the east. This statement appears fatal to his view, as a district situated to the north-west of Oudh cannot well be said, in a work written in Benares, to be situated prdchan defe. Finally, even the correctness of his identification of Såketa, as mentioned in this passage of the Mahdindshya with Oudh, may be as much called in question, as the other passage, adduced already, by Goldstücksr: "Arunad Yavanaḥ saketam,"
as there are two or throu other towns of that name, any one of which has, prina vista, the same right to be the Sâketa of either of these two pussages of the Mahuldskya as Oudh has.
To proceed, Bhandarkar's remark "on the native country of Katyayana would be very conclusive but for one rather serious drawbackthere is, so far as I can see, no cogency in taking the words "yatha lankikavaidikesh" as a virt. tila; they are a simple example quoted by Patalijali from the speech of the Dakshinatya, as he refers to it in other places, for (Ballantyne p. 397) "asticha loko sarasisabcasya pravsittin, dakshin Apatho hi mahanti saransi sarasya ity uchlyante." We know from the Vákyapadiyanı that the Mahalledshja remained for some time preserved in books only (Stenzler in Ind. Stud. V. 418) amongst the Dakshingtya, a tradition which no doubt renders the assumption probable that we may thus have to account for some auch allusions.
For taking the word acharyadesiya in the sense of "Acharya the younger," as Bhårdarkar proposes (p. 96), I can find no authority. Either we must take it like (sabrahmachari) taddesyah (Mahd. bldr. XII. 6305) as "countryman of the acharya" (though no doubt acharyasadesiyo would be more correct), or it conveys the idea of a certain inforiority in rank (ishad asamaptau, Pån. V. 3, 67); and with Goldstücker, I doubt very much, whether Kafyyata, who supports in general Patañjali's views against Kâtyâyana, wonld have called him by such an epithet, reserving the title of Acharya to the latter.
With regard to my opinion that the word dcharya in such expressions as paśyati tu dold. ryah, as occurring in the Mahabhashya, applies to Patañjali. I think Bhandarkar right in correcting it in the instances given, in others I am still doubtful; the question appears not yet ripe for being finally settled.
In the passage about the Mauryas I must leave it to others to decide if Patañjali's words do really imply it as his opinion that Panini himself, in referring to images that were saleable, had in his eye such as those that had come down from tho
In my Noto, Ind. Stud. V. 154, I remarked that"this is open to question. For there were several places called Saketa. Köppen (I. 112, 113) adduces very forcible reasons for the opinion that the SAketa (SAkcetu, according to Hardy) mentioned so frequently in the life of Buddha cannot be Ayodhya, as Lassen assumes (II. 65). And Lassen himself shows (III. 199, 200) that just a little can the Ptolemaid Sageda, Σάγηδα μητρόπολις in the country of the 'Adelo a pou, who dwell nexpe To Oủfévrov öpous (Ptolem. VII. 1. 71), be Ayodhya. According to the view of H. Kiepert, which, in answer to my inquiry, he has most kindly communicated, in an atter pt to adapt the statements of Ptolemy to our present geography, the position
numunicated, in an atter pt to adapt the state of Sageda on the Ptolemaic map would fall south werd
from Palimbothra, in the direction of the Vindhya and the south of India, probably in the upper regions of the Sona, still northward from Amarakantaka, and by no means 80 far southward into the Dakhan as Lassen assumes it to be: perhaps it lay even on the northern slope of the Vindhya. Finally, Ptolemy mentions another Sageda (the text has Sagada, see Laseen, II. 2.10), which however lies in further India, and consequently does not concern us here. On the whole, there is none of the places mentioned bearing the name 8 Aketa that lies nearer the kingdom of Kanishka than the one which corresponds to the modern Oudh: and as to the thing itself, consequently, it matters little to which of them we refer the utation from Patañjali."