________________
182
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[OCTOBER, 1926
“ Påņini quotes the Ķk Pratiśåkhya." The quotations do not refer directly to the Prátisakhya as such, but to Sakalya.
Now even admitting that Såkalya was the head of the school, in which this supposed Silcad originated, he is not necessarily its author. Max Müller himself believes, as we think, quite correctly, that Saunaka according to the Indian tradition, should be regarded as the author.
Let us admit that Sakalya probably was the head of this school, though he is quoted in the Prâtiśákhya itself as an authority of discrepant views. Even in this case a quotation of Sakalya does not imply that Pâņini knew the Rk Prâtisakhya or Saunaka-who is only quoted once in a bhâsye na vyakhyatam ; it only could prove that he knew Såkalya. And as at least two persons of that name are mentioned in the Rk Prátiśåkhya itself, a quo. tation in Pânini; which does not definitely distinguish between the two, could only refer to the older Sakalya.
But assuming for the sake of argument he knew also the younger Sakalya (though it would undoubtedly be curious if so clear a thinker as Panini should have omitted to specify to which of the two he was referring), it may reasonably be held that Såkalya might have been older than Panini and even been the head of that school, in which the Prátisakhya originated, without the Prâtisakhya necessarily being in existence in the time of Pånini: For the Prâtisakhya is undoubtedly the product of a long development. And as it quotes Sakalya also-both Pânini and the Rk Prâtisakhya may be quoting from a common source.
This argument in itself cannot prove what it is intended to, viz., the posteriority of Pånini.
But let us now turn to the passages quoted and examine them. The quotations are found in I. 1. 16; VI. 1. 127 ; VIII. 3, 19; VIII. 4. 51.
Now out of these sutras all are bhdsye na vyakh ydtani except VI. 1. 127. We must therefore admit the possibility that they were not known to Patañjali.
It is curious to note that, while Max Müller is able to show that the statements contained in the other sitrus quoted may be traced also in the Rk Prátisakhya (& circumstance, which in itself even is no reason in favour of its higher age), he states as to VI. 1. 127: "Hier sagter [Panini), dass, nach Sakalya, auslautendes i, u, ?, vor unähnlichen Vokalen unverändert bleiben können, und fügt dann hinzu, dass diese Vokale kurz werden. Für die Verkürzung findet sich nun allerdings keine Autorität im Prátisakhya."
Thus we see, that, even if this argument were not actually erroneous, it could not prove aught that it is believed to establish, for those statements of Sakalya, which have the authority of the Rk Prátisakhya, are not found in Patañjali, and the one found there has no corresponding statement in the Rk Prátisakhya.
The opinion of Indian authors. Max Müller bimself appears to realize the feebleness of this argument, for he admits it has "zwar an sich keine Zwingende Beweiskraft."
It is easy to refute it by pointing out that no statements of Indian authors to the contrary (i.e., that Pånini must be of later date) are known, and that comparisons of this kind seem to be altogether lacking.
. The Purvâcâryas. First of all, if the pûrvácâryas are quoted by the commentator, the word can in no way prejudice our opinion as to the age of the work commented upon. A commentator can never precede in time the work which he studies. And if the expression is not found in Panini and Katyayana, this may be due to the fact that it had not yet been invented at their dates.
