________________
540 The Philosophy of the Bhagavad-gitā
[CH.
Heliodorus, son of Diya, describes himself as a great devotee of Bhagavat (parama-bhāgavata), who had erected a pillar bearing an image of Garuda. In the Nānāghaț inscription of 100 B.C. Vasudeva and Samkarṣaṇa appear together as deities to whom adorations are addressed along with other gods. If the testimony of Patanjali is accepted, the religious sect of Vasudevas existed before Panini. It is generally believed that Patanjali lived in 150 B.C., since in course of interpreting a grammatical rule which allowed the use of the past tense in reference to famous contemporary events not witnessed by the speaker he illustrates it by using a past tense in referring to the Greek invasion of the city of Saketa (arunad Yavanaḥ Saketam); as this event took place in 150 B.C., it is regarded as a famous contemporary event not witnessed by Patanjali. Patanjali was the second commentator of Panini, the first being Katyāyana. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar points out that Patanjali notices variant readings in Katyāyana's Varttikas, as found in the texts used by the schools of Bharadvājīyas, Saunāgas and others, some of which might be considered as emendations of the Vārttikas, though Patanjali's introduction of them by the verb pathanti," they read," is an indication that he regarded them as different readings1. From this Sir R. G. Bhandarkar argues that between Katyāyana and Patanjali a considerable time must have elapsed, which alone can explain the existence of the variant readings of Katyāyana's text in Patanjali's time. He therefore agrees with the popular tradition in regarding Panini as a contemporary of the Nandas, who preceded the Mauryas. Katyāyana thus flourished in the first half of the 5th century B.C. But, as both Goldstücker and Sir R.G. Bhandarkar have pointed out, the Varttika of Katyāyana notices many grammatical forms which are not noticed by Panini, and this, considering the great accuracy of Pāṇini as a grammarian, naturally leads to the supposition that those forms did not exist in his time. Goldstücker gives a list of words admitted into Pāņini's sūtras which had gone out of use by Katyāyana's time, and he also shows that some words which probably did not exist in Pāņini's time had come to be used later and are referred to by Katyāyana. All this implies that Pāṇini must have flourished at least two or three hundred years before Katyāyana. The reference to the Vasudeva sect in Panini's sutras naturally suggests its existence before his time. The allusions
1 Sir R. G. Bhandarkar's Early History of the Deccan, p. 7.
