________________
244
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[AUGUST, 1876.
bhrashta has been applied by Bhartrihari not to the text of the Mahabháshya, but to the vyákara- nagama, the traditional knowledge of grammar as handed down from teacher to pupil,t a fact by which alone the force of Prof. Weber's argument would be considerably lessened. The terms are and ver are indeed used occasionally with reference to the text of a work (974), and when they are so used it must be admitted that the writer who employs them desires to state that such text is lost, either completely, or at any rate partly. But it does not follow that because the 2014, i.e. traditional interpretation of a text, has be. come we, or because a work is no longer studied, its text must necessarily have been lost too. Pun yaraja, the commentator of the Vakyapadiya, when accounting for the fragmentary state of the third chapter of that work, brings forward, as one of the probable reasons, the
TWT, the fact that part of Bhartrihari's work had ceased to be studied, and his doing so sufficiently proves that although that may in course of time lead to the loss of a text,' the former is not equivalent to the latter. There exist at the present day numbers of works in the libraries of this country, though their art4 has been lost, I am afraid, beyond the hope of recovery.
The passage of the Vakyapadiya from which Prof. Weber concludes that at the time of king Abhimanyu) fragments only of the original text of the Mahabhashya were in existence, and that from these a new text of the work was prepared by Chandracharya and others, was first pointed out by the late Prof. Goldstücker; it was republished with corrections by Prof. Weber himself in vol. V. of the Indische Studien, and subsequently again reprinted, together with the commentary of Punyarâja, by myselfon pp. 285-7 of vol. III. of this journal. After having stated
the reasons which induced Patanjali to compose his great commentary, and that the latter, on account of its difficulty, was not generally understood, Bhartihari proceeds thus :
वैजिशौभवहयक्षैः शुष्कतर्कानुसारिभिः। a f fa ..................17
यः पातञ्जलिशिष्येभ्यो भ्रष्टो म्याकरणागमः । काले स दाक्षिणात्येषु ग्रन्थमात्रे व्यवस्थितः।। पर्वतादागमं लब्ध्वा भाष्यबीजानुसारिभिः ।
स नीतो बहुशाखत्वं चन्द्राचार्यादिभिः पुनः॥ Prof. Weber's translation of these lines on p. 160 of vol. V. of the Ind. Stud. is this :" Vaiji, Saubhava, and Haryaksha, addicted to dry reasoning,... destroyed the Rishi's. work:
"The grammar-text, lost to Patanjali's papils, existed for a while among the Dakshinatyas, in one MS. only."
"Thereupon Chandra and others, searching for the seed (i.e. the original) of the Bhashya, received the text from Parvata, and made many branches of it."
From the remarks which follow this translation it appears that the words destroyed the Rishi's work' are not to be taken literally, but must be understood to convey the sense (see p. 163) that Vaiji, &c. "rose up against the work of Patanjali and caused it to fall into disuse (verdrängten es) for a while.” Moreover, from pp. 166 and 167 we learn that Chandra and the others recovered the Minhábhashya, and that they did not establish a new text. Whether Prof. Weber was justified by his own translation in speaking, on p. 168," of the reconstruction (by Chandra and others) of a text which had been lost for a time," -- a view which, so far as I am aware, he has upheld in all his later writings, I leave for the decision of the reader. But the translation itself-which was prepared
From the way in which Punyaraja subsequently in the commentary on the verse THEITHE (see above, vol. III. p. 287), as well as in his résumé of the contents of the second book of the Vákyapadlya (
TT 17. जागम:), employs the term व्याकरणागम, it is evident that
Ut cannot possibly mean the text of the Mahd. bhashya,' but can only mean the doctrine or the traditional knowledge of grammar.'
The name of this scholar is spelt both Peyardja and Puñjardja in my MSS.
एतेषां च वितत्य सोपपत्तिकं सनिदर्शनं स्वरूपं पद काण्डे लक्षणसमुदेशे विनिर्दिष्टमिति ग्रन्थकृतैव स्ववृत्ती प्रतिपादितम् । भागमभंशालेखकप्रमादादिना वा लक्षणसमुदेशब पदकाण्डमध्ये .7 :11
TI purposely have omitted the last word of this line, be. cause both its reading and signification appear to me somewhat doubtful. The Puns, Benares, Lahore, and Dr. Burnell's Malayalam MSS. read E450. Colebrooke's MS. has 4 and Punyardja appears to have read कञ्चुकैः for he seems to explain it by संग्रहप्रतिपक्षभूतैः
enemies of the Samgraha,' on which, according to Punyarfja's statement, the Mahabhashya has been based. If
964rhy be correct, it must, as was pointed out by Prof. Stenzler, be an adjective qualifying it, and its meaning may possibly be preserving the contents of the) Samgraha.' The meaning of the whole passage, so far as we are concerned with it here, is not affected either way.
