________________
JULY, 1873.]
CORRESPONDENCE, &c
207
tom not to use the king's ancestral pedigree, but quite impossible that he could have stood by his only that of his purohita (purohitapravarend 'brah. conclusions in spite of all I had brought forward marasya, ibid. X. 79). To speak of his sacrificos with regard to their relation to Nagarjuna, and NAin the way Patañjali does, appears thus as a most gårjuna's relation to Abhimanyu, and that they natural thing for any Brahmanic writer who lived should not have been anyhow affected by them. at a time when their fame was still fresh enough Without the fresh light thrown upon the passage, to be thankfully remembered, but seems to me farin question, when interpreted according to Korn's from implying with any strictness that the writer viow, that the Madhyamikås are not the Bauddha was contemporansous with him. "There would sect, but a people in Middle India, its interpreresult a very curions biography of Patanjali if all station would still remain beset by all those diffithe examples which he draws from common life, culties, from which Bhåndårkar has now, to be sure, and which are given by him in the first person, made a very good case against mo, but which were to be considered as throwing light on his were almost all of them already pointed out by myown personal experiences." Both passages onself too, stating at the same time that, as I readily the sacrifices of Pashpamitra are highly welcome acknowledged, my rather forced attempts o explain as a bit of history of that king, but with regard to them away rested "on the doublo assumption Patañjali's age, in my opinion, they add nothing that the reading madhyamileds is correct, and more to the fact, already known previously (sinco that the name of the school did not exist until 1861), that he did not live before Pushpamitra's atter its foundation by Nagarjuna." There time, but that they convey the notion that the was no other explanation at hand at the time memory of this king was still cherisnod by the when I wrote. By Kern's interpretation, the as. Brahmans.
pect of the whole question is indeed very much We come now to the second point, the two pas changed, though I still hesitatu to consider it as sages adauced by Goldstücker: "arunad Yavanah settled, and hold to the opinion that it "requires Såketam," and," arunad Yavano Madhyamikån." further elucidation." Only the first of them was noticed by Bhandarkar I come now to the facts adduced by Bhåndarin his first article (Iul. 4 . I. p. 302); but his kar at pp. 69-71. The first of them--the third silence on the second, far from implying that ho meution of Pushpamitra's name I have already did not coincide with the interpretation of it given spoken of. In his remarks on Patanjali's nutive by Goldstücker, would seem to show, on the con place he quotes a very remarkable passage from trary, that he acquiesced in it, not being yet aware tho Mahalluslyut, which 110 doubt refers to of all the difficulties of the case. When thero- Saketa as lying between the place of the fore he now proclaims that the conclusions at speaker and Pataliputra. Sakuta, Bhandarkar which he arrived at that timo are not affected takes to be Ayodhya, and procents: "Patthijuli's by anything I have said in my critique on nieties live therefore must have been showhen Goldstücker, ho is enabled to say so only from to the north-west by west of Oadh." Now then my having meanwhile drawn his attention to Pro. is a town and district of the name of Gonda, fossor Kern's opinion on the Mally a miki, miles to tho north-west of it. Goma represents which too, though contained in an Euglish book modern corruption of the Prakrit Gonada, Sanski, published in India, 1864, had remained to him as Gouarla, contained in Gonardiya, a surname unknown as my own lucubrations written in of latajiuli. Gond therefore is the native place German in 1961. For so long as, with Goldstücker, of the great grammurian. This conclusion, though he considered the Madhyamikas to be the very ingenious and clever indleed, seems to me still Bauddha school of that name, it appears to me surroundel by very grave difficulties. F'ilsn there
* Til St . V. 158, in the following mat, left out in the translation on p. 63,-"When Guldstücker remoti tie example given in the Mahabharly, III. 2, JI! (w uccurs also in I. 1, 41, Ballantyne, p. 538) : abhijansi deradatta Ka á mireslu vatsyamah, tatra suktuu pil syimah (odunam bhokshyamale, p. 738), Kaimirin acachhâua, tatra waktun apibáma (odan:um abluunali, p. 538) as information which Patanjali has given us of his having temporarily resided in Kashmir,' and adils :
This circumstance throws some light on the interest which certain lings of this country took in the preservation of the Great Commentary,'- I do not understand either how so perfectly general an example can determine any conclusion whatever regarding events in the personal history of Patasijali, or how such a journey as his iut: Kashmir, for the purpose of there drinking saktůn (leer? yavapishtani, Taitt. 8., ed. Roer, I. p. 627), or of eating odana (pap)-vaso la kshanani bhojanaus lakshyan, says
the Culeutta Scholist, have mercil any possible influence on the interest winch Ablimanyu and, you later. Jayapida showel in tlu jubkiht. It ! not incleed be inferred from this example, with any kind of certainty, that Patanjali did not limself live in Kasinair. In fact, quite a curiona birraply of lataüjali might contruct, if all his examples of this natin, la tri comumou lite, which are expressed in the first person, we to her anled at the same time in the light nt perenal experiences. The name Devalaitta, cor d ing to that Rua Cuius, sutficiently testities to the perfectly sneri churate of the above emplo."
+ In one point, however, he overstatag them, when I saw it 19 a mere supposition, Dut suportliny any reliable auth. rity, "that Kanishka persecutedthe Buddhistletore he him. self became a confort;" this is no suposition of mine.it all, as he calls it still another time since I gote for it (p. 2) the testimony of Iliwen Thsang, 1. 107 (L200, III. 7).
