________________
302
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[OCTOBER, 1877.
this subject, in my opinion Professor Kielhorn on his part goes very much too far in the opposite direction. Nor do I think that his very ingenious interpretation of vichinnam by vichinnasampraddyam (!) and Panyarâja's explanation of vipuivita by abhdeskrita, 'perverted,' are really acceptable, or that car is restricted to the meaning of 'interpreter.' But I shall not enter here more particularly into these details, for, as I have remarked already, even under the direct adoption of these and all the other explanations, partly offered already by Professor Stenzler, the aspect of the whole case is not materially altered. A book of which even Hindu tradition affirms that it had been viplávita-let us say perverted'-by its adversaries, that its traditional interpretation had been bhrashta, lost to the pupils of its author, that it had censed for some time to be handed down orally, and remained only in written form in the Delchan,-a book which, moreover, had to be introduced twice into Kasmir on account of its having become vichinnam after its first introduction, dating about six or eight centuries earlier than the second one which of course must have been made from a country where it had been kept meanwhile : avichinnam),-such a book has, in my opinion, no claims whatever to our regarding its text as "unchanged and the very same during two thousand years."
Nor do I think that Professor Kielhorn has been more successful in his polemic against the internal evidence brought forward broadly by Dr. Burnell, and before him, but more diffidently, by myself, as to the (no to speak) conglomerate character of th Bhashya. It is a pity that he had not been able, at the time he wrote, to weigh also the arguments of a third scholar going nearly in the same line with us, viz. of Böhtlingk, who in the second of his two papers on this sub. ject (Jour. Germ. Or. Soc. vol. XXIX. pp. 185 ff. 483 ff.) arrives at the following conclusion (p. 490) :-"The form of the dialogue brings us again close to the supposition that the redaction of the Mahabhdshya does not come at all from Patanjali himself (gar nicht von Patanjali selbst herrührt)." The question as to the different component parts of the Bhdshya is indeed a very intricate one. Professor Kielhorn has devoted to it great care and study, and his opinions are entitled to all consideration and respect, but I may be allowed to state here my impression that he appears to me rather too much inclined in favour of the entire oneness of the work; and, in order to put your readers into a position to judge more freely on the merits of the case, I beg to subjoins translation of what I have said on this part of the question in my paper on the Bhashya in vol.
XIII. of the Ind. Stud. pp. 314-330. But before I proceed to do so I have to examine some statements made by Professor Kielhorn, in the course of his deduction, which require some rectification.
(1) Professor Kielhorn accuses me of "two slight inaccuracies" in my remarks concerning the history of the Bhashya, in so far as, firstly, I had spoken repeatedly of three different occasions on which it had received the epithets viplavita, bhrashta, and vichinnam, whereas in reality there were but two; and as, secondly, the epithet bhrashta had been applied in the Vákyapadiya not to the text of the Bhashya, as maintained by me, but to the vyakarandgama--the traditional knowledge of grammar. I do not think that the word 'inaccuracies' has been well chosen by Professor Kielhorn in this instance, as it would be correct only under the condition that I interpreted the passage in the Vályapadiya in the same way as he does. But the fact is that our interpretations differ, and what he calls 'inaccuracies' is simply to be laid to the account of this difference. Of course he is fully entitled to criticize and rectify my interpretation, but not to charge me with inaccuracy' for drawing conclusions in harmony with my conception of the sense of the passage. Now in my translation of it the word vydkarandgama is given by 'Grammatik-Text' as referring to Patanjali's work itself, and I have also explained in extenso this my translation of agama by 'text, doctrinal system (Lehrsystem), doctrine (Lehre),' as in opposition to that given by Professor Goldstücker, who takes it as document or manuscript of the Mahábhdshya: see Ind. Stud. vol. V. pp. 162-165. Moreover, the word pratikañchuka, purposely omitted by Professor Kieihorn on account of its reading and meaning being as yet uncertain, is not left out by me, as the dots in Professor Kielhorn's quotation on p. 244 would seem to imply, but is translated in harmony with Punyarája) by 'adversary' (widersacher). In consequence of both these differences in my translation of the two verses in question, the words viplavita and bhrashta in them, though relating to the same work, still do not relate to one fact, but to two :-firstly, to its devastation ("destruction, destroyed,'-zerstört, as Professor Kielhorn has, is rather too strong :'verwüstet' is my expression) by the adversaries of its author; secondly, to its having been lost to his pupils, very probably indeed on account of these assailments. If we now add to these two facts the statement of Kalhana about the vichinnatva of the Bhashya in Kasmir in Jay&pida's time, I think I was right when I spoke of "three different occasions......" But I am at present quite willing to reconsider my translation itself; and I concede,
