________________
248
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[AUGUST, 1876.
grammar, by which this Varttiku is preceded, times find in it also statements in the first have not been invented by Patanjali; but, so person... on the other hand, according to far from allowing them to be an addition made Bhânďárkar, we have to understand by the word during or after the 7th century A.D., I would भाचार्य in such phrases as पश्यति त्वाचार्यः not Patanrather maintain that those arguments must jali at all, but Påņini! As regards some pashave been current long before Patanjali, and sages, Bhandarkar appears to be strictly corthat all he has done himself is to comment on rect; by no means, however, as regards all : them, and to quote the interpretation of another for on the one hand this would form too scholar which differs from his own. When glaring a contrast with Någesa's distinct statea scholar of Yå ska's antiquity has thoughtment to the contrary that in the Bhashya 14 it desirable to bring forward arguments in denotes only Patanjali, भाज्ये आचार्यपदेन शाखाध्यापको favour of the study of his science, the presence 4rt va faro, on the other hand, in many of such arguments cannot, surely, furnish any of those cases the reference to the statements just cause for casting doubts on the authentic of the Bhashya (and not to the wording of city of a work supposed to have been com ! Påņini's Sätras) is perfectly car and distinct. posed during the second century before our era, How matters really stand will still have to be and it is accounted for, rather than rendered specially investigated. But, in spite of these suspicious, by Patanjali's devotion to the study two corrections of my former statements, so much of grammar. To my mind the language and at any rate remains certain, that on the whole the style in what we are accustomed to call the the cases in which the views of the Bhashyakára Vahabhashya are a sufficient proof that that. are stated in the first person are comparatively great work must have been composed a very rare, and that, as a rule, his statements, on the long time before the 7th century. In the Va- contrary, are made in the third person." kyapadiya native grammarians have given to I was, I confess it, somewhat startled when us & specimen of such a compilation or con- first perusing these lines; for I also had studied troversial manual as has been described by Dr. portions at least of the Mahabháshya, and durBarnell, but I am unable to admit that the ing that study it had always appeared to me trr.as used by that sc olar are fairly applicable that the word are:, in cases where no other t) what tradition has taught us to regard as the Acharya was particularly specified, denoted either original work of Patanjali.
Pâņini or, though much more rarely, KátyaAnd this leads me to touch upon one more yana; and, moreover, I could not remember to question raised by Prof. Teber,-the question, have found Patanjali, if I may say so, speaking namely, whether the Mahabhashya ought not in the third person. I was sorry, too, that a to be considered the work of the pupils of Patan- man of Någojibhatta's vast learning and scholarjali, rather than the work of their master. ship, whom I had found cause to regard as one
"It is true," says Prof. Weber on p. 322 of vol. of the greatest grammariaus of modern times, XIII. of the Ind. Stud., "one of the arguments should have been thought capable of making which I have brought forward in favour of this a statement the falseness of which could be view, viz. hat Patanjali in the Mahabhashya demonstrated from almost every single page of is always spoken of in the third person, and the Muhábháshya. The first thing I had to do that his opinions are several times introduced was to examine Någojibhatta's remark for with, or rather with af , is no longer myself, and here I found that it admitted of a strictly valid. For, on the one hand, we several very different explanation.
that another understands by it Rv. I. 164. 46. I may add, too, that by (6) n a (11) ered, and (12) दशम्यां पुत्रस्य some other passages appear to have been intended than those which have actually been quoted by Patanjali.
• See Nirukta, I. 15. apertura FTTT वियते ऽर्थमपतियतो नात्यन्तं स्वरसंस्कारोदेशस्तदिदं विद्यास्थानं |
RETET A FREY ll (Compare here with Patanjali's explanation of असंदेहार्थ चाप्यध्येयं व्याकरणम् .) |
1.17. 22
AT 1 अथापि याज्ञे दैवतेन बहवः प्रदेशा भवन्तीत्यादि । अथापि ज्ञानप्रशंसा भवत्यज्ञाननिन्दा च । स्थाणुरयं भारहारः॥ 45E14 || (See Patanjali.)
T : 4 II (See Patanjali.) T HE II + Nagojtbhatta saya भाष्यकृदेव
