Indian Antiquary Vol 47

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 40

36
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ FEBRUARY, 1918
2
The other argument adduced by Mr. Chanda to prove that the Abhiras migrated to India before the birth of Christ, is that Katyayana, the predecessor of Patanjali, excludes the word mahasûdri from the operation of a certain rule of Pânini (IV. 1. 4). According to Amara and Kâsikâ the meaning of this word would no doubt be Abhiri. But it is neither a scientific nor a safe method to explain a text of the early second century B.C. in the light of an interpretation suggested by authors later by at least seven hundred
years,
Whatever might be the value of the premises put forward by Mr. Chanda it is fair to acknowledge that his theory might have been substantiated from the Mahabhashya itself. I draw here the attention of scholars to one important passage of Patanjali, which, so far as my knowledge goes, has not yet been pointed out. The Abhîras are actually mentioned by Patanjali in his gloss on the Vârtika-sútra," इन्द्राभावान् सिद्धम् " The passage is quoted below:--
सामान्यविशेषवाचिनोश्च इन्द्रो न भवतीति वक्तव्यम् || यदि सामान्यविशेषवाचिनोर्द्वन्द्वो न भवतीत्युच्यते शूद्राभीरम् गोबलीवर्दम् तृणोलपमिति न सिध्यतेि । नैष दोषः । इह तावत् शूद्राभीरमिति आभीरा जात्यन्तराणि | etc.
The import of the above passage is that dvandva-compound should not be formed between a general term (sámánya) and a particular term (visesha). If this be so. there cannot be any drandra compound like sûdrábhîram, gobalivardam, etc., for in these examples the words of each pair stand in relation of sâmânya and vises ha. Therefore if we want to have a dvandva compound in sudrabhiram súdra must not be taken as a general term and abhira as a particular term included within that term, though they are actually so. for, in that case, the meaning would be, an Abhira who is a Sûdra, which would satisfy only the requirements of a karmadharaya compound and not a dvandva-compound. Here, the two terms are thus required to be understood as if they represent two different classes (jâti).
The legitimate inference which we can draw from the above, is, that the Abhiras had settled in India and come to be associated with the Sûdras even in the time of Patanjali, who lived at any rate in the second century B.C. Therefore, their migration is to be placed at least three hundred years before the Christian era. The Vayupurâna tells us that, at the time when the portion referring to the Abhîras was composed, they were not even counted as Sûdras, but were looked down upon as Mlechchhas. The period of its composition must therefore be placed prior to Patanjali. From the Vayupurana we learn also that the Abhîras had already settled in northern India and penetrated even to the far south. This is again indicative of the further antiquity of the Abhira migration into India.
5 Kielhorn's Mahabhashya, I, 252.
6 Vayupurana, Ch. 45, vs. 115, 126.