________________
96
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
(APRIL, 1884.
is the testimony of such a work as the Kéra- of the 8th century A.D." If that evidence Idtpatti to be rejected in favour of such stanzas can be accepted, it follows that the anthor as we have referred to ? I will not dwell on of the passage above set out must have flourishother traditions, or even on those, and they are led before 756 A.D., and if so, it further folnot few, which bear upon the date of Saúkara- lows that he cannot have been born in 788 A.D., charya. But I shall now proceed to show as we are told in the stanzas above alluded to. some specific grounds for rejecting the evidence But the evidence available on the date of of the stanze relied on by Prof. Max Müller. Sankaracharya does not rest here. In the
And, first, in the Bhashya of Sankaracharya Bháshya on the same sutra we read :-(I again on Vedanta Sutra II, 1, 17, we read as follows: drop the portions not material to this inquiry.) (I omit the portions which are not material for सतोहि द्वयोः संबंधः संभवति न सदसतोरसतोर्वा । our present purpose) af 2 7: gà feftu- TUTTET 16 Tre Traffa HATTEUTमानस्तदहरेव पाटलिपुत्रे संनिधीयते युगपदकत्र वृत्ता
| मनुपपन्नम् । सतां हि लोके क्षेत्रगृहादीनां मर्यादा बनेकत्रप्रसंगादेवदत्तयज्ञदत्तयोरिव नुनपाटलिपुत्रनिवा- दृष्टा नाभावस्य । नहि वंध्यापुत्रो राजा बभूव माक्पूर्णferit: which may be thus freely rendered into
वर्मगोमिषेकादित्येवंजातीयकेन मर्यादाकरणेन निरुपाEnglish: "For Dövadatta cannot be at Srughna,
ख्यो वंध्यापुत्रो राजा बभूव भवति भविष्यति इति वा and on the same day at Patalipatra, because for simultaneous existence in more than one place,
fargas11 the things themselves must be more than one, This may be thus rendered :-"For there as Dávadatta and Yajžiadatta residing at Sru.
can be a relation predicated between two real ghna and Påtaliputra."
things, not between two anreal things, or beNow it seems safe to infer from this passage, tween one real and one unreal thing and that both Sraghna and Pataliputra must have non-entity being an unreal thing, a limit such been in existence at the time when it was as is indicated in the words, 'before creation,' written. The gist of the argument is plainly cannot with propriety be stated regarding it. in the distance of the two places named being
For, in practical life, we see limits of real things, sach that a man who is in one of them on one
such as fields and houses, not of non-entity. day cannot on the same day be also in the Thus we cannot predicate of that unreal thing other. And such a distance could not be predi- -the son of a barren woman-that he was, is, cated of any two places like these, unless or will be king, with such a limit as this-viz, both of them were real existing places at the son of barren woman was king before the time." Now the evidence has been indicated coronation of Purņavarma." above, which shows that Patalipatra was de- It is not necessary for our purpose to further stroyed by & river inundation about the middle explain Sankara's argument. It is enough to 10 8eo inter alia Barth's Religions of India, p. 89 note,
11 See Canningham's Arch. Sury. Report, vol. VIII, and noo also the K vicharitra, pp. 6 and 7. One of the Pp. xiii, 204. ; vol. XI, P. 154ff.; J. R. A. 8., vol. VI, p. dates there given (p. 6) is statad to have been dedaood 559; J. A. 8. B. vol. XVII, p. 85. But see, too, Indian by the Inte Dr. Bhau DAJl from a stanza like those refer Antiquary, vol. XI, p. 19, where the original packago is red to but not at all go explicit.
differently rendered. The discrepancy is vital on this " See also siririka Bhashya (Bibl. Ind. ed.) p. 1093,
point, but though the papor in the Antiquary professor where Sraghna, PAtaliputra, and Mathuri are mentioned
generally to be a reprint of that in the Journal of the
Asiatic Society of Bongal, no explanation is given of this together. This lends some support to the argument in the
discrepancy. It is to be hoped that this matter will be text. It may, of course, be suggestad (Conf. Ind. Ant. vol. IV, p. 945) that these may have been merely conventional
cleared up before long by experts. For the view op examples, as Sraghna, Mathurâ, and Pitaliputra are
posed to that stated in the text, reference may also be all referred to in various places in Patanjali's Mihabhi.
made to Dowson and Elliot's Hist., vol. I, p. 58, andshya, for instance, and at least once in a similar context.
for what it is worth-to Eggeling's Ganaratnamah dadhi Conf. Mahabhashya, as quoted by Professor Weber, Ind.
Part I, pp. 7, 89. As to Srughna, see Canningham's Arch. Ant., vol. VI, p. 353. But in the first place, the example
Surv. Report, vol. I, p. 162; vol. II, p. 226; his Ancient Geo
graphy, pp. 345, 452, and the map appended thereto; and as given by Sarkara, is adapted to the requirements of his
Barhut stapa, pp. 8, and 15. From the first of the particular argument, not merely repeated verbatim from
Paesagos oited, it would appear that even in Hiuen Patañjali: secondly, the examples in Patañjali balong to Triang's time Sraghna was in ruins, though the founde
period when Patalinutra was still in existence (conf. tions were still solid. As to Mathuri, mentioned in us to this Professor BhAndarkar's view in Indian Anti
the passage referred to in the note, see Beal's Fa-hian, qwry, vol. I, p. 311); while after 756 A.D., according to
P. 53; Cunningham's Geography, P. 373; J. B. 4. 8. vol. the evidence referred to, the illustration, even if &
XVII, p. 120. (For Srughna, see also P ini, I, 8, % conventional one, would have czased to illustrato any. II, 1, 24,8 ch., IV, 3, 25 and 88: Vardha Mihira, Brth. thing in such an argument as Sarkara's, and therefore Sanh. XVI, 21; Hall's Vasavadati, int. p. 51; and Beal's would scarcely have been employed in the context wo Buddh. Records of the West. World, vol. I, p. 186.--kid. havo bere.
13 P. 53 (Bibl. Ind., ed.)
II.A.)
