________________
August, 1876.)
ON THE MAHABHASHYA..
245
without the assistance of any commentary-is open to objections, for some of which I may refer to Prof. Stenzler's remarks in the Ind. Stud. vol. V. p. 448. Following Punyaraja's commentary I venture to render Bhartrihari's words thus :
" When the book of the Rishi had been perverted by Vaiji, Saubhava, and Haryaksha, because in attempting to explain it) they had followed their own unaided reasoning,
"The traditional knowledge of grammar, lost to the pupils of Patanjali, in course of time existed only in books, amongst the Dakshi- ņâtyas.
"It was again widely diffused by Chandracharya and others, who, after they had received the traditional knowledge from Parvata, followed (by its means) the principles laid down in the Bhashya."
After a careful consideration of Bhartrihari's statement and of all that has been written about it (see also Burnell, loc. cit. p. 91), I am unable to perceive that it contains any allusion to the history of the text of the Mahabháshya. What the author of the Vakyapadiya really tells us, so far as I understand his meaning, is this :-There were certain scholars, mentioned by name, who in the explanation of the Mahdbháshya rejected the assistance of the traditional interpretation handed down to them, and trusted each to his own unaided reasoning. Their attempt, as might have been expected, proved unsuccessful. The meaning of Patanjali's work became perverted; its text, indeed, continued to exist, but as its true meaning was no longer understood, this existence was a sham (atre, as Panyaraja says,) rather than a reality. The traditional interpretation having been once neg. lected ceased to be handed down orally from teacher to pupil, and remained only written down in books, which I understand to mean in the shape of written commentaries,t among the
Dakshiņâtyas. Chandracharya and others got hold of these commentaries which gave the traditional interpretation, and made it again generally known; they developed and diffused the science of grammar after, by means of the traditional interpretation, they had mastered the principles laid down in the Mahábháshya.
For the sense in which I understand verse I. 176 of the Rajatarangini, I may refer the reader to p. 108 of vol. IV. of this journal, and I may add that even according to Prof, Weber's own interpretation, as given in Ind. Stud. vol. V. p. 167, the verse must not be understood to refer to a 'reconstruction,' or, as Dr. Burnell, loc. cit. p. 91, has expressed it, a revision,' of the text of the Mahabhdshya, but relates only the 'introduction of the work into Kashmir.
The above are, I believe, all the reasons which Prof. Weber has ever brought forward to prove that the text of the Mahabháshya has been 'several times newly rearranged.' The more important of them were examined at length, after the publication of Prof. Goldstücker's Pánini, in vol. V. of the Indische Studien, and the conclusion to which they appeared to point then was, to use Prof. Weber's own words (p. 169), " that there existed no cogent reasons to doubt the authenticity of the text, so far as it was known," fourteen years ago. Since then, it is true, the whole text of the Mahabhashya has been made generally accessible; but, as I fail to perceive how thereby its authenticity should have become more doubtful than it was before, I consider myself still justified in maintaining " that for the present we are bound to regard the text of the Mahábháshyz as given by our MSS. to be the same as it existed about two thousand years ago."
But I shall be told that even if all. I have maintained in the preceding were correct, there would still remain sufficient internal evidence
* Instead of the epithet T i ga Panyardja in his résumé uses the expression a t "over. powered by conceit,' i.e. Vaiji, &c. were too conceited to follow the traditional interpretation. Prif is explained by THTETIT, literally reduced to a semblance, i.e. after the treatment which the Mahabhashya had received from Vaiji, &c. it indeed looked still like the Mahabhashya (just as a Hetvdbhasa looks like a Hetu), in reality however it had ceased to be the Mahabhashya, because its true meaning had been perverted and was no longer understood.
# If it be objected that no such commentaries are known at present, I can only answer that commentaries
of which we know nothing must have existed even in Kaiyata's time, because he frequently introduces interpretations that differ from his own by 37-u, art, 11And there is no reason why commentaries on grammatical works should not have been lost, as well as others. The commentaries on Pipini's Stras by Challibhatti and Nalldra, which are mentioned by Jinendrabuddhi, are, so far as I am aware, not known to Sanskrit scholars even by name. And that commentariee on Káty yana's Varttikas were in existence when Patanjali composed his own Mahåbhdeh ya no one will deny who is acquainted with the latter.
