________________
AUGUST, 1876.]
ON THE MAHABHASHYA.
Nâgojibhaṭṭa's declared object in composing his Bhashyapradipoddyota was to elucidate Kaiyata's Bhashyapradipa, but he did not thereby regard himself as prevented from commenting on the text of the Mahabháshya as well, in cases where he deemed Kaiyata's commentary insufficient; and, to show the student at first sight that he was explaining the text of the Mahábháshya, and not that of Kaiyata's commentary, he adopted the practice of prefixing to such explanations the word (see Ballantyne's ed. pp. 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, &c.). This is exactly the case in the passage quoted by Prof. Weber (loc. cit. p. 36), ध्यापको भाष्यकृदेव विवक्षितः. Nagojîbhatta considers that Kaiyata ought to have given a note regarding the meaning of the word a in तेभ्य एवं विप्रतिपन्न बुद्धिभ्यो ऽ ध्येत्भ्यः सुहृद्भूत्वाचार्य इदं शास्त्रमन्वाचष्टे because in this particular passage a does not appear to him to convey its ordinary meaning; and to supply this defect he is good enough to tell us that (in his opinion) a denotes, in this particular passage of the Mahabhashya, exceptionally the author of the Bhashya himself, and not those whom it denotes generally (Pânini or Kâtyâyana).
Accurately to determine whether Prof. Weber was right in maintaining that in the Mahabhashya : in such phrases as far: (by which I understand Prof. Weber to mean the phrases पश्यति त्वाचार्यः, आचार्यप्रवृत्तिर्ज्ञापयति, and ज्ञापयत्याचार्य :) denotes in the majority of oxses Patanjali, and that the latter, as a rule, is spoken of in the third person, or whether I was correct in believing that ar (with possibly the one exception pointed out by Nâgojibhaṭṭa) did not denote Patanjali, and that the author of the Mahábháshya in the body of the work ascribed to him (with perhaps the exception of those five passages in which, according to Professor Weber, the terms गोनर्दीय or गोणिकापुत्र occur) was not spoken of in the third person, I should have had
This vårt. and Patanjali's remarks on it are of some importance, for we learn therefrom that at any rate in P. IV. 1. 160 the word does not denote former grammarians, but has the sense of . For the different view taken by Dr. Burnell see his essay On the Aindra School, pp. 24 and 26.
§ It is hardly necessary to state that we are very often required to supply the subject Pânini. For instances I refer to
p. 22b, यदयम् अ अ (P. VIII. 4. 68 ) इति... शास्ति; p. 32a, 33a, &c.
249
to read through the whole of the Mahábháshya. Though I had not the time for doing this, I thought it right to study once more at least part of the work, with the view of testing, so far as was in my power, the truth of Prof. Weber's statements and of my own impressions. Accordingly I read through carefully the first 240 pages of the text of the Mahabhashya as given in the lithographed Benares edition, and the results. at which I arrived by doing so were the following:
(a) As to the word a. On the first 240 pages this word is found sixty times, and among those sixty passages in which it occurs there is only one, viz. that pointed out by Nâgojîbhatta, in which it deuotes Patanjali himself, provided Nâgojibhatta's statement be strictly correct. The phrase आचार्यप्रवृत्तिर्ज्ञापयति occurs twenty times, ज्ञापयत्याचार्य : nine times, and पश्यति त्वाचार्यः seven times, and in them are always means Panini. Besides, Pânini is denoted by a nine times (on pp. 116, 12a, 40a, 46a, 476 twice, 946 twice, and 1126).
Four times a denotes Kâtyâyana, viz. twice on p. 13a, once on p. 186, and once on p. 756 (see his várt. on P. VI. 1. 129).
The Acharya Sakalya is mentioned on p. 82a. The Acharyas generally are spoken of six times; Acharyas other than Śâkalya once; and the Acharyas mentioned by Pânini likewise once, viz. in the várt. आचार्यदेशशीलनेन च तद्विषयता on p. 112a.
(b) As to whether Patanjali is, as a rule, spoken of in the third person. Since Patanjali (with the possible exceptions already pointed out) is not mentioned by name, the question to be decided is really this: whether for verbal forms such as पठति, वक्ष्यति, in cases where their subject has not been particularized in the Mahábháshya, and where it is impossible to supply the subject Pánini,§ we have ever to supply the nominative पतञ्जलि :.
p. 24b, यदयंकरांति p. 250, 316, &c.
Do.
. उच्चारयेत्p. 31a, अयमुपदिशेत्.
p. 34b, यदयं क्षुभ्नादिषु (P. VII. 4. 39) नृनमनशब्दं पठति. p. 556, किति प्रतिषेधं वक्ष्यति (P. I. 1. 5), &c.
As in all these and similar cases the context would show at once and beyond doubt that the subject of the verbs ft, &c. can be no other than Panini, it was unnecessary for Patanjali to tell the student that it was Panini who had taught something by the rule 37 37, Panini who had
