Jainism Early Faith of Ashoka

Author(s): Edward Thomas
Publisher: Trubner and Company London

Page 92

THE EARLY FAITH OF ASOKA.
pages of dictionaries or grammars. Nevertheless, amid the odd words cited, for other purposes, we discover, in Patanjali's commentary on the Sútras of Pánini, a most suggestive record by the annotator, who is supposed to date somewhere about B.C. 160-60,1 regarding the gods of the Mauryas. Prof. Goldstücker's translation of Pánini's leading text, with the illustration added by Patanjali, is subjoined:
56
"If a thing,' says Pánini, 'serves for a livelihood, but is not for sale' (it has the affix ka). This rule Patanjali illustrates with the words 'Siva, Skanda, Visákha,' meaning the idols that represent these divinities, and at the same time give a living to the men who possess them while they are not for sale. And 'why?' he asks. 'The Mauryas wanted gold, and therefore established religious festivities.' Good; (Pánini's rule) may apply to such (idols as they sold); but as to idols, which are hawked about (by common people) for the sake of such worship as brings an immediate profit, their names will have the affix ka." 2
That there are many difficulties in the translation, and still more in the practical interpretation of this passage, need not be reiterated.3 The first impression the context conveys
1 This is Prof. Weber's date; Prof. Goldstücker assigned Patanjali to 140-120 B.C.; and Prof. Bhandarkar fixes the date of his chapter iii. at 144-142 B.C.Ind. Ant. 1872, p. 302.
2 Goldstücker's Pánini, p. 228. Prof. Goldstücker goes on to add: "Whether or not this interesting bit of history was given by Patanjali ironically, to show that even affixes are the obedient servants of kings, and must vanish before the idols which they sell, because they do not take the money at the same time that the bargain is made-as poor people do I know not. . . . I believe, too, if we are to give a natural interpretation to his (Patanjali's) words, . . . that he lived after the last king of this (Maurya) dynasty."-p. 229.
...
Prof. Weber's critical commentary upon Goldstücker's rendering of this passage, amid other argumentative questions as to the period of Pánini himself, proceeds: "Patanjali, in commenting on rule v. 99, of Panini,. in the case of a life sustenance-serving (object, which is an image, the affix ka is not used), except when the object is valuable. In the case of a saleable, e.g. Siva, Skanda, Visakha, the rule does not apply."
"The gold-coveting Maurya had caused images of the gods to be prepared. To these the rule does not apply, but only to such as serve for immediate worship (ie. with which their possessors go about from house to house) [in order to exhibit them for immediate worship, and thereby to earn money]."-Indian Antiquary, 1873, p. 61.
3 Prof. Weber'a opinion on the bearing of this passage is to the following effect: "In the passage about the Mauryas I must leave it to others to decide if Patanjali'a words do really imply it as his opinion that Pânini himself, in referring to images that were saleable, had in his eye such as those that had come down from the Mauryas. I never said more than thia. And Bhandarkar goes too far when he says: "Prof. Weber infers that Pânini in making his rule had in his eye,' etc. My words According to the view of Patanjali;' 'Patanjali is undoubtedly of
are: