________________
AUGUST, 1873.)
CORRESPONDENCE.
239
to Sanskrit authors could not have originated so lived to the east of Påtaliputra. The only proper early. Dr. Kern's book I saw and glanced over meaning therefore is "Påtaliputra is to the east of the preface of, several years ago, but I did not re- Mathura." And even if we take Professor Weber's member his explanation of the word Madhyamika explanation, "Påtaliputra is before Mathura," it when I wrote my article in the Indian Antiquary, does not follow that the speaker, supposing he was vol. I. p. 299, though I always thought the word Patanjali-which however is not the case-was to meant some such thing. But soon after the article the east of Påtaliputra, any more than it does appeared, and before Professor Weber's criticism when I say "the horse is before the cart" that I on it was received, I read Dr. Kern's preface am to that side of the cart, and not this, or to this, again, so that it was not Professor Weber that and not that. The word purva no doubt means first directed my attention to it.
primarily before,' but when applied to show the reNow to come to Professor Weber's remarks on my
lations between places the anteriorners of one from article at vol. II. p. 69. The Professor still adheres another is to be taken with reference to the usual to his interpretation of the passage Mathurdyah
standard in such comparisons, namely-the rising Pataliputram púrvam. And his reason is Patan- sun. Hence the word comes to signify the east, jali's use of the word vyavahita in that connection,
and as used in connection with places it has always which he thinks means 'distance. Now the word
this sense. I have no doubt therefore that my invyavahita, so far as I know, never means 'distance,
terpretation of the passage is correct, and that it but 'covered,' concealed,' or 'separated' by some
does not in any way militate against the conthing intervening; as, for instance, England is vya
clusion I have drawn from another as to the vahita from us, by several countries and seas in. native place of Patañjali. I do not see why a tervening: or in the word R&mena, R is vyavahita
district very near Oudh may not be said to be from n by d, m, and e. The context of the passage situated prdcham defe. Benares was not the in Patañjali is shortly this :-In the satra achar point from which the bearings of different places parasmin párva vidhau, the question is, With re- in India were taken. Prägdesa, Udagdeśa, &c. ference to what standard is the word purva or were settled terms; and one living in Pragdesa
preceding' to be understood P For a time he could call himself a Prachya. Amara defines takes the nimitta, or condition of a grammatical Prigdesa as that lying to the south and east of change, to be the standard, and says that the prin
the Saravati. cipal example of this sutra, viz. patvyd or midvyd Professor Weber gives no reason for thinking is also explained or shown to fit with the rule on that yathd laukika-vaidikeshu is not a vartika. this supposition. How does it fit P The state of But this passage is explained by Patañjali and the case in patvyd is this :-first we have patu, made the subject of a dissertation just as other then i the feminino termination changed to y, and vdrtikas are. The whole argument given by the after that, a, the termination of the instrumental author of the Mahabhdshya, a portion of which singular. This last is the nimitta of the change was reproduced by me in my article, is contained of the previous í to y. Then what is to be done in these three aphorisms, the last of which is the by applying the sutra is-to regard y as a vowel one under discussion :-1, Siddhe babdarthaand change the u of patu to v. But says the ob. sambandhe; 2, lokatortha-prayukte sabdaprayoge jector, the rule in the søtra does not apply here on 64strena dharma-niyamah; 3, yathd laukika vaithe supposition you have made for the u of patu is dikeshu. These are all explained and, as texts, not párva from d, which is the nimitta, as it is descanted upon by our author; he mentions separated from it by y substituted for 1. Then, Acharya incidentally as the author in connection says the original speaker, the word pårva is used with the first of these, which Acharya must be not only to signify a thing that immediately pre Katyayana here, since these are not sútras, and cedes another, but also to signify one that precedes Nagojibhatta t expressly calls the first two vdr. but is separated from it by something intervening, tikas. The third also must then be a vártika, as in such expressions as this: "Påtaliputra is since it is of a piece in every respect with the púrvam from Mathur," in which púrvam is used other two, and completes the argument, which though several places intervene between the two without it would be incomplete. The aphorism towns. Now, it is plain that this is given as a cannot be the composition of Patasijali, for he phrase in use and current among the people to
makes it the subject of his criticism, and says that serve as an authority, for taking purva in a certain the words contained in it are Dakhani words. I sense, and therefore, if Professor Weber's inference cannot understand the connection between this is correct, all people using the expression, i. e. the passage and the one quoted by Professor Weber Sansksit-speaking population of India, must have about the use of sarass in the South. What has
. Ballantine. n. 47. 49. + Ibid. p. 53.
