________________
OCTOBER, 1877.]
jupet purushasuktam tu smared devam anantakam | arghapushpapraddnena dcharyam tu prapujayet 50
CORRESPONDENCE AND MISCELLANEA.
sopaskarám cha pratimám ácháryaya nivedayet || 63 ||
Krishnaya 'nantarupaya dadami pratimám imam | ... 64 | iti pratimádánam |
ácháryárdham tato bhaktyd brahmane vinivedayet | brahmanebhyo (sic! "bhyas) tadardham cha baktyd tebhyo nivedayet || 65 ||
.. brahmanan bhojayet paschád vrati vibhava saratah || 69 ||
mishṭannam payasadiné cha ácháryam cha sadakshinamdinánáthasvanugatan brahmanané cha vibeshataḥ || 70 ||
bhunjita vágyato bhûtvá mishṭánnam sa tu bhojayet CORRESPONDENCE PROF. WEBER ON THE MAHABHASHYA.
To the Editor of the Indian Antiquary.
I have read with intense interest Professor Kielhorn's article on the Mahabhashya in vol. V. pp. 241 et seq. But, with all respect for the scholarship which we are wont to find in Professor Kielhorn's writings, I am sorry to say that I felt rather disappointed with the result of my perusal of this deduction of his. For instead of giving us positive proofs for his decided opinion that "we are bound to regard the text of the Mahabháshya as given by our MSS. to be the same as it existed about two thousand years ago," he has not even tried to do so, but proceeds merely in a negative way, and his exertions only tend to show (1) that the statements in the Vakyapadiya and the Rájatarangini are not to be interpreted in such a way as to impeach the authenticity of that text; (2) that the external evidence brought forward against it is not sufficient to impeach it. Now, even if he had succeeded thus far (as in my opinion he has not), what would be won for the position he himself maintains? Two thousand years is rather a long time, and to warrant for such a period the sameness of a Sanskrit text which has meanwhile had to undergo so many ordinary vicissitudes, if it were only the constant change of the copies, and of the characters in which they were written, is really a piece of some boldness and audacity. But in this instance we know also of some extraordinary vicissitudes. For, whatever interpretation Professor Kielhorn may give to the statements of Hari (or as he is also called Bhartrihari) and Kalhana,-whether he refers the vyakaranagama of the former not to the text of the Bhashya, but only to the traditional knowledge of its meaning, or whether he explains his viplávita by 'perverted' instead of 'devastated,' and Kalhana's vydchakshana by 'interpreter' in
301
áchamya (cha) suchir bhûtvá chintayet taddine harim || 71 || .
J. prátar nityakarma nirvartya áchárdya devam samarpya vastrakamvusho (kambalo ?)-shnishamudrikádi saktyd dakshinam cha dattvá brahmanan bhojayitvá púrvavad vratam samápayed iti Jayantimahádvadasivratam |
Ká. tato navamyám bráhmanán bhojanadakshinádibhiḥ samtoshyoktapáranánirnite kale bhojanam kuryatasyaiva Jayantioratasya samvat sarasádhyal prayogaḥ śrávanakrishnashtamim árabhya pratimása(m) krishnashṭamyám uktavidhiná pújádirúpal purdnántare uktaḥ tatrodyápanavidhir granthantare jaeyah |
[For § 3 see Ind. Ant. vol. III. pp. 21ff. 47ff.] (To be continued.)
AND MISCELLANEA.
stead of reciting,' 'knowing by heart,' as well as his vichinna by vichinnasampradaya instead of 'split into pieces, incomplete,'-even under adoption of all that, two facts remain :-(1) that Hari testifies to hostilities practised against the " ársha grantha," as well as to a break in its traditional interpretation for a certain indeterminate space of time during which its text existed only in Dekhan MSS., and it was only by the (superhuman! see Ind. Stud. vol. V. pp. 165-166) intermediation of Parvata that "Chandrâchârya and others" regained that "traditional knowledge;" and (2) that Kalbana testifies to two introductions of the Bhashya into Kasmir,-the one by the said "Chandracharya and others" under Abhimanyu; the second, after it had been meanwhile vichinnam under Jayâpida. It is seldom enough in India that we have so many critical criteria for the history of a literary work at hand. Are we really entitled, in the face of them, to cling to the unchanged condition of a text which would be a wonder in itself, even if we did not know anything of these its various fates ?
Of course, I am far from swearing to the exact correctness of those dates as given by both authors (the presence of Parvata alone, if he is to be taken as the helpmate of Nârada, at once forbids such a proceeding); but, on the other hand, such particulars as those given by Hari must have some real foundation, cannot well be wholly sucked out of the fingers. Now, it is true Professor Kielhorn too does not deny this, but he certainly, on the one hand, does not take them into full account, and he tries on the other to explain away their eritical purport. If there should have been (and I will not deny that there may be some truth in that) some exaggeration of this purport on the part of those who have previously treated on
Sic! evidently the half of that which the acharya has received.
