U

First Edition 1905

Reprinked 1915 ~

BY

ADYAR,MADRAS, INDIA
ITis well known that Patanjali was the author of the
Mahäbhãshya, thegreat commentary on Psinini's
grammar; and the author of the Yoga Sütras is also
called by that name. Some scholars are in doubt as
tothe identity of these two authors,andseveral
Orientalists fix thedate of the Mahiibhäshya, each
from his own standpoint, and varying from 250 B. c.
t o 60 after Christ. The object of this paper is there-
fore to enquire into :-(a) tlhe probable date of
Patanjali, the author of the Mahabhäshya, and ( b ) the
,supposed identity of the author of the Mahäbhãshya
with that of the Yoga Sfitras.
The name Patanjali is not of unfrequent occurrence
inSanskritliterature. I n Brihadãranyaköpanishad
a Patanjala of Kapigötra is mentioned : in Päraini's
Ganapata the names Patanjali and Patanjala occur :
Such R S Bohtlingk, Max Muller, Weber ancl
Goldstiicker.
5t.h Adhyäya, 3rd and 7th Brahmanas, o r p. 163 of
the Madras Edition of 108 Upanishads.
6th Adhygya, under Vartika of Siitra, I, i, 64 : also
II, iv, 69. Throughout the essay quotations like I, i, 64,.
refer t o the Adhyiizs, the Pãcla and the number of the
Sütra-but never to Anhikas-of the Mahãbhãshya or the
Ashtãdhyiiyi of P h i n i , as the case may be.

l',
 i
: 2

and the same naIrne (Patanjali) is also found in

Siddhänta Kaumudi under the Vãrtika of Vararuchi,
(also called Kätyäyana),
3
From valuable and undisputed evidence furnished
by Indian literature, we arrive at the conclusion that
he also wrote the Yoga Sutrasandthathe lived
1 Patanjali, the authorof the Mahabhäshya, was born about the luth century B.C. ; the dates given by the
at Gönarda, a tract of country in Cashmere, and his Western Orientalists,’ on the other hand,
vary
1
1 mother’s name was Gönika,’ and he
refers
to himself from 250 B.C. to A.C. 60 ; at anyrate tlheyhave
BS Gõnikäputra2 and Gönardiya ’; which the cornment- decided that from theinternal evidence furnished
l

1 ator (Kaiyata) explains as referring to Patanjali. In by the Mah3,bhäshya itseif, Patanjali flourished after
l Purushöttamä,’s
Lexicon4
he is called Gõnardiya, Buddha’s(Sskyamuni’s) Nirviina, which is fixed by
Bhäshyakära,Chürnikrit andPatanjali. I n Herna- them at 543 B.C.
chandras Lexicon he is called Gönardiya, and Patan-
jali.’ same as Pushyamitra of the Sunga family who began to
j reign about 178 B.C.
! L p, 8, Nirnaya Sägara’s Edition
(Bombay). By the by, Dr. Weber thinks ( I n d i a Au n t i q u a r y ,
I, iv, 51. Vol. II, p. 206) that “ Pushyarnitra ” is the correct form of
I, i, 21. the word ; and Dr. Bhändarkar, too, thinks the same
j T r i k a n d a flëssha, p. 33 (Benares). (ibid, p. 59). Theformerthinks so, because the Jain
, p. 131, Edition.
Calcutta corruption is ‘‘ Pupphamitra,”andthustheoriginal
Sanskrit word must be “ Pushpomitra ”. We regret we
Note 1, page P.-I mayalso include the name of‘ have t o differ from both, on the ground thatallthe
Dr. Peterson of Bombay who thinks(inthe Indian MSS. of the Mahäbhäshya we have consulted invariably
Am%pary, Vol. XII, p. 353) that the Mahäbhäshya might give ‘‘ Pushyamitra ” and not Pushpamitra.
have been written in the 2nd century A.C., for he makes
the Pushyamitra mentioned in that work identical with Note 2 and 3, paye %--Dr. Kielhorn thinks (Indiafi
one “ Pushyamitra,” who, he says, was defeated by Ska,n- Antiquary, Vol. XIV, pp. 82-83) that ‘‘ Gönardiya,” and
‘c Gönikaputra ” do not apply t o Patanjali butt o some other
dagupia. As Skandaguptareignedabouttheend of the
2nd century, it follows that Patanjali livedabout that grammarians. I n reply we should say thatKiyyata
time. This is, however, replied t o by Dr. Bhandarkar, in (already noticed) and his commentators explain that the
the Same volume, saying thatthe inscription on which ~
terms do refer to Patanjali.
Dr. Peterson based hisargumentsmentions that Skanda- 1 1 Bohtlingk (quoted by Weber) 250 B.C. ; Max Mülley.
gupta defeated “ Pushiamitras 7 9 (and not “ Pushiamitran”) j
--.hich means “ the tribe of Pushiyamitra ’,. He supporta 1
about 200 B.c.-vide his History of Ancient LSanskrit Liter-
his own date (144-142 B.C.) which he gave previously (in ature, p. 244 ; Weber 140 B.C., to A.C. 60. ( I n d i a n
the I n d i a n Antiquary, Vol. I, p. 299, et Seq.), on his suppo- Lzterature, p. 224) ; Goldstucker 140 B.C.-120 B.C,
sition that the Pushyamitra of the Mahäbhäshya is the ( P ä n i n i , p. 234).
I
 4 5

The reasons assigned by them for such a conclusion 140,~.c., the date of the Grecian (or Græc6-Bactrian)
are as below when expressed in the plainest invasion of Oudh by Menander.
language : Again, the Mädhyamikäs were followers of
1, In the Mahãbhãshya the “ Mouryas ” are men- Nägärjuna.This
Nägärjuna lived, according to
tioned ; they wereallBuddhistsaccording to the Northern Buddhists, 400 yearsafter,andaccording
Buddhistic records.
This Mouryan dynasty and t o SouthernBuddhists, 500 yearsafter,Buddha’s
its founder Chandragupta are mentioned
in the Nirvana,whichtook place iu 477 B.C. accordingto
Vishnu and other BurAnas ; and he is identical with the former, and 543 B.C. according to the latkor,
Sandracottus ” who is said to have been, aceording This would place Nägärjuna between 37-43 B.C,
t o Megasthenes, Strabo, etc., a contemporary of The invasion of MZdhyamikäis having occurred during
Alexander and Selencus.2 Hencehelivedabout the the time of Patanjali,hisdate would probably be
time of Chandragupta. about the time.
2. the
In Mahiibhãshya, the invasions, by 3. The Hall of one Chandragupta,’ who is said to
Yavanas, of Säketa or Oudh, and of the Mhdhyamikäs, havelivedabout 327 B.C., and that of Pushyamitra,
a Buddhist sect, are mentioned : although he was not (who was, according toRäjatarangini,ahistory of
a n eye-witness, he could have seen them, as they took Cashmere, a Buddhist prince), as well as asacrifice
lace atthe time of the conlposition of thegreat by him are mentioned ia the Mahãbhãshya.
commentary. Theterm ‘‘ Pavana ’’ applies to the 4, RãjntaranginimentionstheMahãbhãshyaand
Grecians, and hence the Grecian invasion is alluded says that one Chandriicharya, himself a gramniarian,
ahiibhäshya was composed about introduced its study into Cashmere when Abhimanyu
V, iii, 99. “ Arunäclyavaao Mädhyamik,?n.” The ‘‘ Yavanas besieged
Max Müller’s Eistory of Ancient Samki-it Liteyataye, (imperfect) Sãketa,” the “ Havanas besieged (imperfect)
pp. 297-298. Mädhyamikäs.” Nere the commentators
explain that
HIP, ii, 101. =ere Pänini lay-s down that the Patanjali who uses these expression lived at that time,
imperfect should be used when the speaker relates a past although not on the spot, when the Yavanas besieged
action belonging t o atime which precedes the present. Oudh and the Mädhyamikäs.
Vararuchi observes that the imperfect is also used when Goldstiicker’s €’irnini, etc., p. 234.
t h e event related is o o t of sight, and at the same time
a I, i, 68. “ Chandragupta-sabha, P~shyamitra-s~,bha,~’
famous but could be seen by the person who uses the verb.
Patanjali adds t o this Vãrtikaof Vararuchi’s thefollowing the Hall of Chandragupta, the Hall of Pushyamitra.
instanceswith remark-“ Arunadyavana sfikätharn,” s III, i, 26 ; IIÌ, ii, 101.
 6 7
reigned in that country, which was in A.D. 40 other, before the time of BgdarGyana, Their identity
(according to coins). Hencewearenot wrong in is therefore highly improbable.
supposing thatPaniniand KätyByana lived in the Let us examine the Mahgbhäshya andthe Yoga
begirznirzg of the 3rd century B.C., and Patanjali in the Sütras themselves and find out how fartheseargu-
3rd century B. C.^ ments are sound.
5. Hiouen Thsang says that Kätyäyana lived 300 I n reply to No. 1 of the arguments of the Western
Qrientalists :
years after the timeof Buddha, that is about 240 B.C. ;
the KZtyäyana referred to is, therefore, Kätyäpna,
I. The Mahãbhãshya says that the Mouryasl were
makers and worshippers of idols, such as those of Siva,
author of the Värtika. If Katyäyana lived about 240
Skanda and VisRkha, and were begging from door to
B.C., Patanjali, who quotes him, flourished about
door, taking these idols withthem. If, according to
200 B.C.’
the Buddhistrecords, the Mouryas had belonged to
6. The Yoga Sütras of Patanjali containseveral
a royal family instead of beingbeggars, thenthese
Buddhistic views. Hence Patanjali flourished at any
Mouryas mentioned in theBuddhist records must
rate after Buddhism had sprung up.
be quitedifferent
from
those mentioned in the
7. BGdarByana refutes, in
his
Brahma Sütras
Mahkbhhshya.
(II,ii, 3), the Yoga system of philosophy. Hence
Patanjali, the founder of the system of Yoga, flourish- V, iii, 39. I n India, atthe presentday,thereare
ed before Bädaräyana. Now as Panini alludes to the several wandering tribes known variously by the names
Dâsaris(Tamil),Guduguduppândy(Tamil),Budubudu-
Brahma Sütras, and their author Päräsarya, it follows kalavädu (Telugu), Langãris (Hindustani).
that Panini flourished after the time of Päräsarya or
They, just like the “ Mouryas,” take on their heads sh
BädariZyana; and much more therefore Patanjali the smallalmirah,in which arekept wooden images of
author of the Mahäbhäshya. Thus we have two certain deities which they call Poturäju, Polëramma, etc.,
Pa,tlanjalis, one the author of the Mahäbhäshya, who and unknown t o the Hindu Pantheon, coloured in divers
ways, and varnished: some of them carry these images on
flourished afterthe time of Bãdaräyana, and the their bosoms or hands.When they goa-begging, they
recitecertainprayers tothe deities which the images
Max Muller’s History of Ancient 8anskritLiterature, represent, in a language which seems t o be an admixture
p. 244 ; also Weber’s History of Indiau Literafwe of Telugu, Hindustani and dialects of the Indian gypsies
pp. 219-220 (Note). or Chenchus (ahilltribe belonging t o Cuddapahand
P. Bohtlingk. Kurnool Districts of the MadrasPresidency).They do
IV, iii, 110, 111. not belong t o any of the Sndra classes, as the Velamas,
 8 Cs
IE they had been Buddhists, they would not have who were ruling princes, such as Chandragupta,
beenworshippers of idols, and muchlessthose of Asoka, etc.
Siva, Skanda and Visãkha. The old MSS. (of the Mallä,bhãshya) of the South
If the Aryans were worshippers of idols, he would make the allusion of making and selling idols apply
havesaid so ; on thecontraryhealludesallalong notto Moozwyas but to Puw-as, a peculiartribe also
inhiswork to the Aryanworship of the 33 Vedic mentioned in the Vishnu Puräna ; for
example
Gods. It is therefore conclusive that when he speaks MSS. Nos. 31, 33 of the Adyar Library, whichare,
of the idolworship of the Mouryas, a non-Aryan on palæographical examination, found to be more than
tribe is meant. 3 and 4 centuries respectively, may be consulted. Pf
W e alsoknow thatthedescendants of Chandra- I‘ Pouras ’’ be the right word, so much controversy
gupta, who were called Mouryas (from the fact that about the allusion of PatanjalitotheMouryas will
Chandragupta is called bythePuränas, Mourya, vanish at once.
being the illegitimate son of Nanda, by Mura, a slave II. Regarding argument No- 2, we nmst carefully
girl) were very famousBuddhists,forundertheir examine the termYavana. I t is of frequent occur-
influenceBuddhism spread over Indiaandforeign rence in Sanskrit literature;
and
every Western
countries, such as Ceylon, etc. and the Great Council Orientalist, from the time of Sir illialn Jones to that
by the name of Sangha convened,monasterieswere of ProfessorMax Müller, says thatit invariably
built and edifices constructed. It is therefore absurd implies the Greeks.Thisterm is derivedfrom the
to imargine that they begged from door to door and Sanskrit root yu-to mix or to be swift, implying a
madesuch idols as those of Siva,Skanda,Visãkha, mixed or a swift race.
Hence the Mouryas who were poor and who earned It occursin Pånini,andKiityzyanasays inhis
their livelihood by (making and) selling images, were Vartikas, that when the “Alphabet of the Pavanas ’ B
not a tribe in any way connected with the Mouryaa ismeant,the affix änuk ” shouldbeaddedtothe
Maidus, Modëliars, Vellalars, etc , and are by their habits word “ Yavana,” and this becomes Yavanäni.Even
and customs exelusit-ely non-Aryans. These are known granting for argument’s sake that Pänini lived in the
in India from a long time ; perhaps these tribes are the
remains of the Mouryas of Patanjarli.
Amsa 4,ch. xxiv o r p. 326 (Madras Edition).
Vide also Tandya Mahabrahmana, IV, 27, and Briha-
dranyaka 5th Adhyaya,9thBrahmana, Rig Veda, 8. 4. a IV, i, 49.
28. 1, etc. Xiddhanta Kaumudi, p. 61, Bombay Edition.
B
 P
10 11

6th centuryB.C. according to Professor MaxMuller l- thegencalogy of the ancientkings,speaks of the

and certainly he lived several centuries
c earlier-it is Yavanas as the descendants of Durvasu, son of
plain thatneitherPãnini norKátyãyana used the Yaygti.
term c 6 Yavana ” in their works to mean the Grecian I n the Vishnu Purgna, it is stated, while describ-
alphabet, for it, would not bave been introduced into ing the BharataVarslla or India,t’hatthe Yavanas
India before the invasion of Alexandev in the4th live in the west, the Kirgtas in the east, and tlle four
century B.C. Dr. Goldstiicker thinksthat “ Yavan- Indian castes i n the middle, of India ;and it is also
ani ” signifies the cuneiform writing, andbeing said tbat the Yavanas were driven out by Sagara, a
peculiar in its cllaracter when comparedwith Sans- descelldant of Ikshvaku,tothe countries lyiug be-
krit, it must’ have beenknown duringthe time of yond the borders of India, after having shaved their
Pãnini, heads (under the advice of Vasishta), althougll they
To show that the term is of frequent occurrence in were Kshatriyas.Further,the same Purãna, while
Sanskritliterature, t.he followinginstances may be giviug details of the future dynasties of Kali Yuga,”
quoted : s i p that eight Yavanas will rule over India.
Manu says thatthe Yavanas, Kämbhöjas, etc., Kãlidäsa in his Raghuvamsa describes the victories
were originally Kshatriyas, but became outcastes by Qf Raghu over the Ssrasikas : and in so doing he
neglecting their Vedic duties, etc. mentions the ‘‘ Yavanis ” or Pärasika women.
111 GautamaDharmaSutra,it is statedthatthe Most of the Smritis denounce the association of the
Yavanas are a mixed (Pratdöma) caste of Aryas. Aryans with the Yavanas at the table as highly sinful.
I n t8he Riimåyana of Viilmiki, ’ theterm Yavana In Garga Samhita the -I’avanas are highly spoke11
occurs indieatmg a tribe who fought during the wal- of, for theirspecialknowledge of astrollonly alld
of Visvamitra.The Mahäbhärata, whilegivingout astrology. ’
From KgsikävrittiandVishnu PurSna we learll
I Bistory ?f Amcie7zf; X a n s k r i t L i t e ~ a t u r e . thatit was the cnstorn among the Yavanas to get
2 PCl+z.i?az,p. 16.
ch. X, v, 144, 45. L Amsa 2, ch. III v. 8 (p. 137, Madras Edition).
Amsa 4,ch. VI, 20, 21. (p. 287, ibid.).
Sacred Books of theEast, Vol. II. P a r t I, Ch. IV, Amsa 4,ch. XXIV, (p. 326, ibid.).
v, 21. (p. 196). * Book IV, v, 61, 62.
Edakiirzda, canto 55, verse 3 (p. 34, Madras Edition). p. S (Calcntta Edition) of the Nribat Ranlhita
6 ddiparz?a,ch. lxxxv, 34 (p. 119, NIadras Edition). Chapter II, v, 15.
 12 13

theirheads wholly shaved-a statement which the Regarding the

Fädhyamikäs,it is absurd
to
national custom of the Gresks could never sanction suppose that the Yavanas invaded and captured the
for when Demosthenes got his head shaved, he sought individualsbelonging to a n idealisticphilosophical
tQconceal himself in a cell in order that he might uot sect called by that name-especially when we consider
appearia public, andthathemight notbe there- may say that at the present day, any European nation,
fore disturbed in his studies. ’ the English, the French, or any other, is generally termed
With reference to Dr. Goldstucker’ssupposition 6‘ Hüna ” by the orthodox Brahmins. It also seems that
$his has been the case from a longtime. The word
thatthe invasion of the Cræco-Bactrians under Hüna is generally taken tomean “ white-skinned people
Nenander (asbout 144 B.C.) is meant, when Patanjali The Bhägavata PurLi,na mentions “ the Hünas, Kirfitas,
used theexpression ‘‘ the Yavanas besiegedSiikëtä Andh~as,” etc., as having followed the teachings of
(Oudh),” we should say that, according to the latest Krishna, and thus become pure. 111 the Raghuvamsa of
Kälidäsa (Canto 4, v, 69), “ HGna women,” are described.
researches, Nenander never came to Oudh, but only Vãmanäèhftrya mentions the Hünas in his Kävyälankãra
up to the Jumna : and in order that he might come to Siitravrltti
(written
aboutthe
12th
century, accord-
ing t o Weber) ; and Appiah
Dikshita, who lived
Oudh he should have gone 300 miles eastward. ’’ aboutthe16thcentury,quotesinhisChitra-mimämsa,
That the Hindus apply the term \‘‘Yavana ’’ to all awork on Rhetoric,the verses from Vãmanächärya’s
Kävyälankära Sütravritti, which
mention the word
foreigners, not only Greeks, who wert. living west of HiinasEvenVenkathcharya, wholived lastcentury,
the Indus, is plain from the foregoing quotations and mentions in
his
Visvagunãdarsa (vv, 411, 414, 415,
considerations : also that the event which took place or p. 93, MadrasEdition)theEnglishandtheFrench
as living near the Vishnu temple att Triplicane (Madras) ;
during the tirne of Patanjali is not identical with any and elsewhere he uses theterm(Yavana)tomeantha
of the Grecian invasions ; and that the identity of the Mussalman(vv, 253, 254, p. 57, Madras Edit!ion). From
all these one is naturally led t o suppose that the meaning
Yavanas with the Greeks is purely imaginary, and to of the word “ Huna,” like that of the word “ Yavaina,”
prove it no evidence is forthconîingfromrecords, graduallychanged from itsoriginal signification, and
Indian or foreign. adapted itself to the times, meaningt h e particular nation
or nations that each of these authors came in contact with.
Lemprière’sClassical Dictionary.Art. Demosthenes. We also corne t o the conclusion, that in the same way
Goldstucker’s P6ni?ai, p. 234. the severalSanskritauthorsmeant t o describe-by the
elide Dr. RäjëndFalälä Nitra’s T.rzdo-Arynn9 : CYmtribu- use of the term ‘‘ Yavana ”-the vmious foreigners they
tions t o w a d s t h e E l u c i d a t i o n of their Ancierd ami MedigVal had known. If might have been applied t o the Persians
Eistory. Vol. II, p. 193. when they invaded India ; after them t o the Greeks, then
* As an example of the tendency of the Hindus to give to the Bactrians ; and at last--also t o the Pathans and
an indefinite name t o several foreign nations and tribes, I the Moguls.
 Dr. Kielhorn’sEdition of the Mahäbhsshyamay, in
contrary, one would naturally expect the Nädhyamlk6s this connexion,beconsulted withadvantage.The
to seek friendship with the Yavanas to make conirnon Hall of Chandragupta occurs i n Dr. Rnllantyne7s
cause against the Hindus. Edition (p. 758).
Now the territory was bounded on the nortlh by the It is highly improbable &at the Greek “ Sandra-

Hilnålayas, on t,he south by the Vindhya Mountains, cottus,” who is said to have been a contemporary of
on the east by Allahabad, and on the west, Vinasana, Alexander
and Seleucus,
was
identicaï
with a
the placewhere the
river
Saraswati
submerges Chandragupta, for he was one of the many Chandra-
underground, is calledMadhyad6sa.l ‘‘ Madhya ’’ guptas in Indianliterature. F o r example, there is
and ‘‘ Madhyama,” being
synonymous, the word one Chandragupta in theGuptadynasty,and also
“ Mädhyanlika,”means the people of Madllyadësa, one Chaadrasri who lived long after the Cha,mdragupta,
andwhen Patanjali said “ theYavanas besieged son of Nunda, by Mura, and after whom foreigners,
theMadhyamikäs,”the expression would naturally such asYavanasandSakas,weresaid t o rulethe
imply that the foreign invaders who penetrated into country.‘
IndiathroughthePanjabshould first attackthe Regarding Pushyamitra, Rajatarangini mentions a
country lying between Rajputana and Allahabad on prince of that name as having ruled over the Bahlika
iheir way to 8äket-a or Oudh ; and this explanation of country,whichisidentified by the Qrientalistswith
OUTS is greatly strengthened when we find Patanjali the modern Balkh, tlhe birth-place of Zoroast’er ; and
himself explaining theterm Ilil%dhynmikä(Mädhya- inthe Mahgbhäshya we readthat (‘Pushyanlitra
n1ikån) to mean “ people o r towns belong to Madhya- performed a sacrifice,” and several Brahmins attended
desa”. the sacrifice and assisted tlhe king.
III. On carefullyexa,miningseveralold MSS. of Now the boundaries of the aryävarta during the
the Mahabhäshya,writteniaTeluguandGrantha time of Pat-anjali were fixed from the Aravalli Hills
characters, we donot find any mention of Chandra- to the RlackForest in Beklar, and the Aryans who
gupta’s Hall in I, i, 68 ; only Pushyamitra’s Hall is
mentioned here and
his
namegiven el~ewhere.~ Vishnfc Purann, Amsa, 4. ch. XXIV.
III, i, 26 ; I I I , ii, 101.
, II, 21.
M a ? 2 ~ch.
II, iv, 1; VI, iii, 109. The northern and southern
V, iii, 2 (Anhika). boundaries were the Himalayas and t h e Päripathya
III, i, 26. Mountains (Vindhya).
 16
lived in thistract were holy and superior. This
Biihlika country wa*stherefore outside the Arykrarta,
and henceaMlechhacountry, and no Aryan would
enterit. Even the king himself could not have
performeda sacrifice in a Mlëchhacountry,sucha
thing being opposed to the Smritis; and the author
of the MahSbhiirhya himself remarks that the goats
of the Bhalika country are quite unfit for sacrificial
urposes. I
Or, if we suppose, according
to the
Western
Orientalists, that he was a Buddhist prince, there is
110 reason t o think that he ever performed a sacrifice,
and still less a Vedic sacrifice. ‘‘ Pushyan~itra”is the
name of several Aryan kings, like Dasaratha, Dilipa,
and Parikshit,as would appear from thePuranas.
A Pushyamitra of Sunga family, who killed his master
and established a throne, is mentioned in the Vishnu
urana, and other Puranas; and his son, Agnimitlra,
is thehero of Kalidasa’s drama,Malavikagnirnitra.
This Pushyamitra performed an Asvanledha sacrifice,
according to the same drama. But we should not ia
any way be understoodasidentifying thePushya-
mitra cf the Mahäbh%shyawith th2 Pushyamitra>of
either MälavikfLgnim~traor Riijatarangini.
Patlanjali mentions in the Mahgbhäshya the Hall of
Chandragnpt,a aswell as that of Pushyamitra. If,ou this
basis, Chandragupta be considered as thecontemporary
1, i, 15 (p. 377-D1. Ballantyne’s Edition).
17
of Alexander and Seleucus, why should not
Pushyamitra too be considered his (Alexander’s) con-
temporary ? Or, if one is mentioned by the Grecians,
why not the other ? Now it will be easy to think that the
only solution of the difficulty possible, with our present
knowledge of the subject, is that, as itis quite common
among grammarians, while giving illustrations tto the
rulesto use such names as Dëvadatta,Yagnadatta,
and Vishnumítra,’ andthese being well known as
Brahminical names, and that such common narnes of
kings should be added t o the expressions like ‘‘The
Hall of-” and “-sacrifices,” such names as
Chandragupta and
Pushyamitra were chosen at
random.
IV. Räjatarangini is a work written by Kalhana
Pandit in the 12th century after Christ, and is a com-
pilation made by him from vague traditions current
in his time.2 No reliance should therefore be placed
on sucha work as this, and much less should it be
consulted for the solution of ahistorical problem.
The fact of Chandracharya’shavingintroduced the
study of the Mahäbhashya into Cashmere in the Ist
century A.C., does notnecessarilylead us tothe
conclusion that Yatanjalilived only threecenturies
These three mmes frequently occur in the illustrations
of the Mahäbhãshya, something llke“ John comes,” “John
goes,” wherenoreference is made to a particular John
-much lessKingJohn of England o r S. John the
Apostle. Such names are called Yäthrichhilca Sabdas.
pp. 213, 214, Weber’s History of ImJian Litemture.
c
 18
before that time. One may as well argue that by the
introduction in the 19th century of the study of the
Vedas into German and English Universities, it may
be supposed that the Vedas were written or compile&
only two or three centuries ago !
V. From Stanislaus Julien’s translation of Hiouen
Thsang’s travels; it is clear (a) that the Kiityäyana
referred to by the Chinese traveller was a, Buddhist,
c whereas theauthor of theVartikas was a Brahmin,
( b ) thatthe Kätyiiyana of HiouenThsang was the
author of a metaphysical work on Buddhism, which
the traveller himself translated into Chinese, and (c)
that, except in name, all the details given by Hiouen
Thsang differ fromthose of Kätyãyana,the gram-
marian.
Again, t o one of the Sutras of Pänini, Kãtyäyana,
adds a Viirtika t o explain theterm Nirvana,” and
says that it means “ t o blow out ”. Thereupon
Patanjali explains by giving various illustrations,
“the fire is blown outby the wind,” ‘‘the lamp is
blown out by the wind.” etc. If Kiityäyana, or
Max Müller’s History of Ancient SanskritLiterature,
pp, 305-9.
VIII, ii, 50.
M. Burnouf was the first t o create the misconception
that L E NirvBna ” meantannihilation. The Paranirvana
Sütra does not give that meaning even. Prof. Max Muller
laboured, untilrecently,underthe same misconception.
On the other hand Nirväna means with them (1) Nega-
tively, state of absoluteexemption from the circle of
19
Patanjali, lived dnring or after the life-time of Siikya-
muni (as is supposed by some), surely they, as
grammarians, would have noticed the Buddhistic
interpretation of t,he word Nirvzna ” which is of the
greatest importancein theBuddhistic philosophy ;
but as they did not, we areatliberty t o say that
neither of them lived after the introduction of Buddh-
ism by Siikyamuni, which carried this
peculiar
interpretation.
The name Katyäyana is also of frequent occurrence
in Sanskrit literature. There is one KätyGyana, author
of Kalpa,’ and GrihyaSûtras, and Xarvsnukramani
who was a disciple of Xsvalgyana ; and the same name
is also that of the author of several Parisishtas and a
Prqtis%khya of Sukla Yajur Veda, while the author
transmigration, state of entire freedom from all forms of
existence, etc. ( 2 ) Positively,Nirvana is thehighest
state of spiritual bliss, absoluteimmortalitythrough
absorption of the soul into itself, but preserving individ-
uality [so that, e.g., Buddhas after entering Mirvãna may
reappea#r on earth]. P o r furtherparticulars see Beal’s
Ctrtenn of Chinese 97cm$hwes, p. 192, and Dr. E. J.
Eitel’s Hnndbook of Chinese Budtlhisrn, beinga Sanskrit
Chinese Dictionary-(Hong-Kong, ISSS).
’ Pänini alludes t o several KalpaSütrasin IV, iii,
106, Äsvaläyana
was
a disciple of Xounaka, and
Kiityãyana theauthor of Kalpa SGtras, andas Präti-
säkhya was a disciple of Asvaläyana.All thePrãtisã-
khyas differ inmanyrespectsfrommany of Piinini’s
rules. Hence the Mätyãyana who was theauthor of a
PrAtisäkhya,and KalpaSütras, etc., wasanterior to
panini,
 20
of the Vãrtika on Pånini is also called by that name.‘
The Malläbhashya mentions a poem of Kätyäyana’s,
and from it we find that he was also called Vararuchi.
It rnay perhaps be the case that the several persons
called by the name of Kätyãyanaweredescendants
According Kathãsärit
to Sãgara of Somadëva,
Kätyäyana studied along with Panini, and with Vyiidi,
the grammer of Indra under Upavarshoptidhysya in
Pãtaliputra ; and he was born in Kousãmbi, a town on the
banks of the Jumna, somewhere near Agra ; his father’s
name was Söma,datta, of Sankriti Gotra and his mother’s
name Shnüttara.The name “ Upavarsha ” is not only
peculiar t o Kathãsärit Sägara, but also t o lexicographers ;
vide p. 131, Hëmachandra’s Lexicon (CalcuttaEdition)
and Purushõttama Deva’s Trikãndasësha, p. 33 (Benares
Edition).Upavarsha was acommentator on Jaimini’s
Parva Mimämsa Sutras, and Bãdaräyana’s Brahma Sutras;
his works are quoted by Sabaraswami in his commentary
on Jaimini’s (p. 12,CalcuttaEdition, A. S. B.)andby
Sri Sankarãcharya in his commentary on Brahma Sutras
(pp. 291,
953, CalcuttaEdition of Asiatic Society of
Bengal).
IV, iii, 116.
Thereis one Vararuchi,author of Lingfinusasnnn
(rules of gender) who is said to have lived in the Court
of one Vikramäditya as would appear from the lastverses
of his work (Benares Edition).
The ,7yotiruid~‘lbhurana, theauthorship of which is
erroneously attributed t o Kälidãsa, mentions a Varararu-
chi as having lived in the Court of the said Vikramäditya.
Vt%yugunitn, otherwise called Gil.nasrë~adlzivdkya,a work
on‘ Astronomical tables(according t o the system of
Aryabhätta), and on which the calculations of Vfikyapun-
chdngam (calendar, according t o the system of V6Fcyagunita)
of South India are based, is said t o be the work of one
Vararuchi who lived in the 6thcentury A.C. From these
one may naturally conclude khat the Kätyäyana who WW
21
of one andthe same Rishi,” and livedinaifferent
times and wrotedifferent works : even Mahgkätygyanai,
a disciple of Buddha, and Kätyiiyana, the author of a
work on Buddhist met,aphysics (translated by Hiouen
Thsang) might havebeenlinealdescendants of one
and the same original Kätyäyana Rishi.
VI. It is not necessary to dwell much in reply to
the sixth, as several points involved were traversed in
our reply to the fifth argument, by giving important
quotations from Panini, Kätyâyana,2 a,nd PatSnjali, in
which the word “ Nirviina ” is mentioned ; and there
we have shown that Patanjali was not awaye of the
Buddhistic interpretation of that word. Patanjali in
his Yoga SGtras mentions the Ïsrvara,’ and speaks of
the necessity of the study of the Vedas, a,nd uses a
word Kaivalya,”
different
from Nirvgna,” to
signify the same idea.
the author of the Vãrtika, etc., cannot be identified with
any other Kãtyäysna 01- Vararuchi.
According t o a well known rule of grammar, all the
descendants of a “Kätyäyana’’rnay be calledby that name.
Kätyãyana: the author of the VArtika on Panini, of
the poem Varnzcch~r, and of the Slökas called Bhrdja
(Mahäbhãshya, 1st A uhikn, pp. 23-24, Ballantyne’s Edition)
is altogether difereni from the author of Kalpa Sutras,
Prãtisäkhya, etc., and who is also called Vararuchi
(T?-ikdn,dasësha, Slöka 85, page 33, Benares Edition) ; and
the same person by the names of Medhãjit, and Punarvrtsu
(p. 131 of Rënzncha?zdya’s Lexicon, Calcutta Edition).
I, 23, 24, 26.
II, 1.
IV, 25-33,
 22
The theories of Karma,Re-incarnation,etc., are
quite common not only t o the Buddhists, but to all
the Asiatic philosophies, except, perhaps, the Jews ;
and hence there is no reason to suppose that these
theories were only borrowed from the Buddhists and
introduced into Hinduism.
It has been argued that the doctrine of Ahimsa or
‘(not killing,” is peculiar to the Buddhists, and against
the doctrine of the Vedas, and that thisis found in the
Yoga Sütras, and hencethat these Sütras were written
after Buddhism had sprung up. To this, we reply, that
the performance of sacrifice-and hencekilling of
animals for sacrificial purposes-is enjoined only on
Grihasthas (married men), but not on Brahmachãris
(bachelors) or Yatis(ascetics). The ruleslaid down
in the Yoga Sütras do not apply t o Grihasthas, but
only to Naishtika Brahmacharis (those bachelors who
wish to remain as such throughouttheir lives),
Vänaprasthäs (those that go to forests wit-h theil-
wives for the purpose of meditation), or Yatis (ascetics)
-more especially thelast named order also those
Viinaprasthgs who practise Yoga should not perform
sacrifices.
23
by his successors, Vãrshaganya, YGjnavalkya, etc.,
as Âsuri, Panchasikaandothersdid in the case of
Sänkhya foundedbyKapilaNeither the Erahma,
Sütras nor the more famous of its commentators, such
as S’ri Sankarãcharyaandothers mention by name
any philosopher of the Yoga school.’ The expression
in the Brahma $ütras is : ‘‘ The Yoga philosophy is
condemned on the same reasons as are given in the
previous Sutra regarding Sãnkhya.“ The Sãnkhya and
Yoga philosophies are inadmissible for ( a ) the
philosophies themselves arein contradiction
with
thedoctrine of theTedas(Upanishads) ; ( b ) the
authority of the Vedas are superior t o these
philosophies ; ( c ) the founders of these philosophies,
v&., Kapilaand Hiranyagarbha,are human beings,
and hence their knowledge must be finite and subject
to errors, and even opposed to reason in several points;
and ( d ) on the otherhand, the i3ruti (Vedas) is
invariably followed by the majority of the sages.
Again, $’rï Sankarâchärya in his commentary on the
above Sutra quotes an aphorism, which does not belong
to Patanjali’sYoga Sütras, as will be found to be
‘6 Anusa,sana ” in the 1st aphorism (Atha Yogänusãsanam)

VII. In reply to the seventh argument we should thus ‘‘ The doctrine of Poga had been founded by
say that Patanjali was not the founder of the Yoga Hirallyagarbha and others, Batan jali simply promulgated
it, by supplementing it, and hence it is called ‘Anus-
system of philosophy. Hiranyagarbhar,aMaharishi, äsannm ’.”
was the founder of this system: and it was promulgated S’ri Rarnänujãchärya mentionsHiranyagarbha by
VãchaspatiMisra, a commentator on Vygsadëva’s name in p. 4’76, Madras Edition, of his, Bhäshya,
Bhäshya OM Patanjali’s Yoga Sütras,explains the word II, ii, 3.
 24
the case on an examination of that work : but it must
either belong toHiranyagarbha or Värshaganya?
The definition of “ Yoga ” given in the Sutra quoted
by Srï Sankariichärya is that “ it is the means of
knowledge of the realities (or truth),” whereas
Patanjali defines it in hisaphorisms ’ as “ the
suspension of the action of the mind ”.
Two verses
from Hiranyagarbha’s work are quoted in the Vishnu
Puriinas;
and Viirshaganya is mentioned by
Vächaspati Misra in his Bhãmati, a commentary
on S’ri Sankarschärya’s Tediinta Sütra Bhäshya.
Y ä g n a d k y a promulgated the same systeminhis
Yogäyiignavalkyagïtä, from which various quotations
appear in maxy philosophical and other treatises.
Fron1 these considerations it will be seen that the
Yoga system was not founded by Patanjali and that
VedantaSutraBhäshya,CalcuttaEdition(Asiatic
Society of Bengal), p. 496.
I, 1, 2.
Amsa, 2, ch. xiii, VI-.42-45 (p. 195, Madras Edition).
* p. 332, Benares Edition.
Vyåsadëva (also called Vyäsa or Vedavyäsa) author
of a commentary on Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, is generally
supposed to be identical with Vedavyåsa, the author of
the Mahäbhqrata, the Brahma Sutras, etc. ; and that he,
therefore,alluded t o hissysteminhisBrahmaSutras.
If it had Ineen written by ,Vedavyãsa(theauthor of
Brahma Sütras) it would have been mentioned in Räja-
mãrtånda by Bhñjadëva who, every one knows, lived after
him ; nor would S’ri Sankarächnrya or S’ri Rämitnujächärya
have neglected it witzhoutmakinganyquotations from
it. In Rajamartanda there is noallusion to any former
25
it (the Yoga system) existed from a long time before
Patanjali, that he was simply an author of a work on
Ohat philosophical system;andthat helived after
the times of Panini and B:idarl?yana.
It is argued that the systems of philosophy taught
in the Yoga Sutrasandthe Mahhbhäshya are in
opposition wit,h each other, and that one author could
notwrite two suchdifferentworks,inculcating two
antagonistic philosophlcal systems. Even
certain
contradictory passages are brought forward to prove
that such is the case; t,o give a few of such contradic-
tions :-(a) That the Mahäbhåshya advocates sacrifices
of animals, and even rernarks that the goats of the
Bahlikacountry are not fit for sacrifice, and knows
nothing of Buddhism : on the other hand the Yoga
system inculcatesthe doctrineof “ Ahilnsa ” in general,’
which is themainstay of Buddhism, and even the
killing of animals for sacrificial purposes is prohibited,
although sanctioned in the Vedas : ( b ) Toga describes
commentary or Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. Vächaspati Misra
mentions one Vedavydsa,commentator on these Yoga
Sutras, and there can be no doubt that this “ Vedavyäsa”
was quite a modern author, and is in no way connected
with the author of the Brahma Sutras. P o r the name is of
frequent occurrence.One Vayasächarya is the authora of
a gloss on S’ri Rämãnujåchãrya’s Bhäshya 011 the Brahma
Siitras ; also the name of a work called Chanchika, on the
Dwaita philosophy of S’ri MadhavächåryaisVyäsaor
Vyåsarãya, --besides the fact that a large number of the
followers of S’ri Madhvãchbrya are mlled by that name .
I, i, 15 (p. 81, Renares Edition).
II, 30, 31, 34, 35.
 c

26 Y7
h v a r a I (God), andenunlerat,es His attributes;whereas One thing is certain, namely, that while he is t h e
the Mahäbhashyabelievesln a resultproducedby author of the Yoga Sutras, he follows the system
sacrifice, and considers that result to be the ultimate founded by Hirallyagarbha,-Vãrshaganya and Yagna-
one, as advocat8edby Jaimini, in hisPürvamim5jmsa, vSilkya : and while he is a commentator on a
and by several ot)her Tägnikas. It should be observed grammatical work, he cannot follow any philosophical
thatPatanjali in hls Mahäbhishya followed the system opposed toit ; in other words, he simply
system of Yãniai, Kätyfiyana, and VyGdi (their worksout the subject hewritesupon as though he
commentator) ; alsoone Kuni with whom he agrees belonged to that system,and no other. This is the
on severalpoints. It would alsoseem thatin his case with every Indian who writes treatlses on differ-
‘C great commentary,” Patanjali followed the systenls ent philosophies, and examplesmay be mult8iplied;
of severalgrammariansantJeriortoPänini,suchas for one, Vächaspati Misra, mas t h e author of a com-
Apisali,Bhiiradwäja, and Gsrgya, as will beseen mentary on Yoga Siitra R h ~ s h y a ,on Nygya Siitra
fromhis
allusions to
them.
Furtherthere
are Bhäshya of Pakshila Swami, andthe Vãrtilra of
severalquest’lons regarding which he does notgive Udyötakarächärya, and of Bhiimati 011 S’rí Sankarã-
any opinionwhatever, but simply givesthose of chä-rya’s Vedänta Sutra Khgshya. He never adopted m
various granlnmrians, his works one uniform system of philosophy, and no
one codagenerally do so. This practicecontinues
‘r, i, 24-6. the
to present
day, when we find the late
Ist Anhike. ProfessorTãränäthaTarkavachaspatiastheauthor
‘’ p. 43. Ballantyne’sEdition : Vyãtdi was theauthor of “Notes on the Yoga Sutra Bhashya of VyRsa,
of Sangraha,the comment8nry, whichcontains 100,000 andthecommentarythereon by Vächaspati Misra,”
granthas of 32 syllables each.
“Notes on Vätchaspati Misra’s commentary 011 Sãinkhya-
Kiyyata on I, i, 175 (pp. 87, 88. Bdlantyne’s
karika,”
and of ‘‘ Siddhäl7tabindusäPa,”
work
a
+

Edition).
III, i, 81, 71.---vide III, ii, 15, regarding *,he
meaning of Parõksha (past time o r behind the sight) ;
III, i, 27, about Varthamänakãla (present tense).
IV, iii, 105. Kãtyãyana in his Vãrtika on this Sfitpa
mentions Yagnavalkyn. Patanjali alsoches the Sanle in
his Xahäbh&shya,. Hence Yãgnavalkya must he anterior
to Patanjali.
on Vedãnba. If we judge him from his work on Yoga’,
he will appear as a follower of thatsystem; if we
Vignãmbhikshu anci BIädhävächärya
were
also
authors of several works on different philosophicd
systems, such as the Nyãyn, the Mimämsa, the
Sãnkhya, and the Vedänta.
 28
judge him onlyfrom his work on Sgnkhya,he will
appear a Silnkhya, and from his Siddhåntabindusåra
will appear as a Vedäntin. Hence from the fact that
bwo differentsystems of philosophg are taught, one
in the Mahiibhäshya, and the other in theYoga Sutras,
it is not right to say t,hat the authors of these two
works are not identical.
So far as the Hindu Pandits are concerned, they
would not for a moment believe that there were two
different persons known by the name of Patanjali, one
lof whom wrote the Mahãbhgshya, and the other the
Yoga Sutras ; for if the tradition handed down from
generation to generation in the line of teachers, and
which is current among the Pandits, is to be belaeved,
no one will hesitatetodeclarethattheauthors of
these twoworks are identical.TheMahãbhiishya
cannot be read by a Brahmin without Rãnthi, a cere-
mony performed under the auspices of a proper teacher,
justas in the case of thestudy of VedsntaSutra
Bhåshyaandothersacred works.Thisprinciple is
1 Although the Mahäbhäshya is it grammaticd work, it
should be noticed that it also teaches a system of philoso-
phy .of.grammar ; and without the studyof such a system,
Pãnml coulcl n o t be properly understood.
A follower of the School of S’ri Sankarächärya will,
011 opening his Bhäshya, first chant a Vedic Mantra, then
a, Sanskrit verse in praise of the great philosopher (and
such is the case with all the Sutras and Gitãbhäshyas),
followed byreciting verses in praise of thelongline
of teachers that succeeded himandendingwith one of
his own teachers.Thereisasimilar customamong the
29
followed by everyBrahminthroughoutthelength
andbreadth of Bhãratavarsha,fromTravancoreto
the northern extremity of Cashmere and from Lahore
to Dacca.Duringtheperformance of the Sãnthi of
the Mahä,bh%shya, the following verse should invari-
ably be chanted by the student at thefirst opening of
the book forthe day, and in the presence of his
teacher;andthestudy of the work is condemned
when this Sãnthi is not performed.
This verse, vix., ‘‘ Yog6na Chittasya padena virchgrn,
nlalam sarirasya cha vaidyakha, Yopä,kariiththam
pravaravn muninäm, Patanjalim prBn jaliränatthösmi, ’’
means, “ I bow withfoldedhandstoPatanjali who
purified the rnmd of its impurities by (writing a work
on) Yoga, the voice of its impurities, by his gramnlar
(Mahäbhäshya), the physical body of its impurities by
his work on Medicine, and who was superior to all the
sages (of his time).”
Let u s try to fix the date of Patanjali. During his
tinze Sanskrit was the onlylanguagespoken in the
Aryävarta, and this is evident from the fact that in
the Mahäbhäshya we find a conversationbetweena
Srivaishnaväs at the commencement of the study of Sr:
R,ämänuj&chãrya’sBrahma
Sütrabhãshya and other
sacred works.
Bhbjadëva followed the example of Patanjali, by writ-
inglikehimthreeworks on threesubjects. On Yoga,
we have his Räjamãrtãncla, a commentary on Patanjali’s
Yoga Sutras; on Grammar, Sabdaprakäsika;and on
Medicine, Råjamrigänka.
 30 31

charioteerandhismaster,aBrahmin, examples of drunkenness condemned ; sinincludedevenwrong

different modes of pronunciation of some words by pronunciation of words,’ although he admitsthat
peoplelivingindifferent parts ’ of the Aryävarta, certain words had 110 regular way of pronunciation,
differencesingivingmeanings to roots by those but the general usage of the Aryans should be fol-
bhat live in countries beyond Indus, such as the Kam- lowed;Sishtâ,chära3(usage or custom among the
bhijjas, et,c., and certainprovmcialismswhich are elders)described,andstrongly recommended to be
strictly condenlned in the Mahiibh5ishya. followed : purityandcondition of theBrahmins
During the time of S%kyamuni,on the other hand, delineated.‘ If allthesepointsbeconsidered,it is
t,he spoken language was Päli--the language used by quiteclearthattheauthorityand customs of elle
him i n addressinghis disciples. The tradition goes Brahmins were in their full sway.
When Buddhism was preached by Säkyamuni, the
un to say that Be first began his address in Sanskrit,
decline of Brahminical authority was so great, Brah-
but 011 one of his disciples reminding him of the fact
minical customs, sacrifices, etc., so muchneglected
hllat the previousBuddhasusedintheiraddresses
and evenridiculed, andVedicauthority so much
only the Pali language, he too addressed then1 in the
defied, that there were 1,350 BuddhistBhikshus in
same tougue.4
Eteligion during the time of Patanjali was almost
2ndÄnhika, p. 100, Ballantyne’sEdition,and i11
entirely Vedic. Vedic: doctrineswere followed, and various other pla.ces.
we hadthe Yiignika? and Brahnlavädias. Inthe 1st Änhika, pp. 12, 18 to 22 (Ballantyne’sEdition).
MalGbhäshya, we find the Ar-yävarta described,’ the 2nd Änhika, pp. 122, 123 (Ballantyne’s Edition).
purityand wisdom of theAryans extolled,
and * II, ii, 6. “ These (Brahmins) are devoid of ambition,
of no motives, possess knowledge and are not too rich ” ;
II, iv, 56. also ‘‘ One who is austere, of good education, of brown
colour,andreddishhair.” I n VI, iii, we find himdes-
I n I, i, 75, the modes of pronuuciation by the Easterlls
cribing a Brahmin of his times as one ‘’ m7holives in the
are given ; for those of the Northerns see VII, iii, 46 , and
-4ryävarta, who lives without keeping anything for the
several other places besicles.
next day, not covetous, and (practises) very good morals
Vide 1st Anhika (p. 62, Ballantyne’s Edit8ion). withoutanymotives,and is pure.” H e elsewheresays
* Dr. Mason’s Knchcllyano’s Pbli Grammar, p. 13. (IV, i and II, ii, 6) that all these qualities go to make up
The country bounded on the north by the Himalayas, a real Brahmin, and every one else is a Brahmin only in
011 the south by the Vindhyas (Päriyätra), on the west name. The state of morality generally was so good that
bx the Aravalli Hills, and on the east by the Black Forest: he condemns every now and theu the practice of drinking
j in Behar, VI, iii, 109. (Suräpäna).
f
i
 32 33

India.’These changesinreligion,and especially i n the cc decisions’’ of the various Orientalists, carefully

areligionprofessedbythosetlhat are termed “ the reviewed, the datesof the Western Orientalists, which
greatest conservatives,”-these changes (which were are considered tobe final on thesubject of the
of so destructive a character) would atthe lowest Nirvåna of Såkyamuni, may falltotheground,
estimation
require 300 years
intervene.
to If The discussion of the dagteof Nirvåna cannot fiEd a
GautamaBuddha,andBuddhaBhikshus could be place in a brief article to a monthly magazine, on the
“ Age o€ Patanjali ” ; and a full treatment of r;he sub-
found in India about 570 B.C.,there is nothing extra-
ordinary in placing Patanjali three centuries earlier, ject o€ the presentpaperwithits allied questions,
that is, 870 B.C.,in ot,her words between the 9th and cannot receive any justice except in a volume.
10th centuries B.C. ; although the changesof language To state our conclusions once moTe €or the sake of
would necessitate our placing hin1 even earlier. clearness ( a ) , Patanjali was the author of the Mahä-
l
Our argument is greatly strengthened if we base bhäshya, a commentary on Panini’s Ashtâdhyäyi, and
our reasoning on the chronology of the Chinese, who also of the Yoga Sûtras, and ( b ) that he lived without
believe that the Nirväaa of Stikyamuni took place in any doubt between the 9th and10thcenturies B.C.,’
that is, about the loth century B.C.
949’ or 9733 B.C., instead of in 543 B.C., following the
Geszeral Renza&s.-The mode o€ treatment of
chronology of the southern Buddhist,s,who follow the
Mahavansa supposed to have been written about A.C.4
Orientalquestions by the Western Orientalistsis so
unique, and so prejudiced, that we cannotrefrain
459. If the Chinese chronology were again seriously
consideredin thelight of a vastliterature of t’he from quoting the following :
Chinese, now accessible to the Western Orientalists, The arguments of Mr. T. Subba Row Garu relating to,
the age of Patanjali, which made Patanjali identical with
Sukhãvativyühathe
in Mahãyãna Sütra.
This Govindaswamy, the Guru of S’ri Sankarachärya, are
number is only of learned Bhikshus. The work (Mahäyäna quite baseless, beinglncontradictionwith theinternal
Sütra) sa,ys thatthere were many more preseut (&!e evidence delivered from original works, such as the Mahä-
page 1, Tokio Editicin). bhäshya, S’ri Sankiirxchärya’s VedantaSutra,bhashya,
etc. (cide The T h e o b o p h L b f , Vol. IV, p. 309-12).
Dr. E. J. Eitel’s Sa,nskrit-Chinese Dictionary-a
handbook of Chinese Buddhism, p. 139 (Hong-kong, We can give brilliant illustrations.
Just
imagine
1888) * Dr. OttoBöhtlingk, “ whileincapable of understanding
Bed’s Catencc of Chinese Scriptures, p. 116 (note). even the easy rules of Pãnini,and much less those of
Max Müller’s Histol-y of Anciewt h7anskrit Literature, Kätyäyana, and still making use of them in the under-
p. 267. standing of classical texts. The errors in his department,
 34
“ Thewritings of many of theseOrientalists are
oftencharacterisedbyanimperfectknowledge of
Indianliterature, philosophy and religion and of
Hindutraditions, and acontemptuousdisregardfor
of dictionary are so numerous and of so peculiar a kind
-yet on the whole so thoroughly in accordance with the
specimens I have adduced from his commentary, that it
will fill every serious Sanskritist with dismay, whenhe
calculatesthe mischievous influence which theymust
exercise on thestudy of Sanskrit Philology.” (Pdnini
and his pluce in Sanskrit Literature, by Tho. Gold-
Stücker, p. 254.)
Dr. Roth writing his Forterbuch (Sanskrit Dictionary),
which is described by Goldstücker ( P h i n i , p. 251) in this
way : “ 1 will merely here state that I know of no work
which has come before the public with such unmeasured
pretension of scholarshipandcriticalingenuityas this
Woyterbuch, and which has, at the same time, laid itself
open to such serious reproaches of the profoundest gram-
maticalignorance ”-explains Vedic words, and “ has
courage to passs sweeping condemnation on all those
gigantic labours of the Hindu mind (e.g., Siiyanbchãrya’s
Bhäshya)whileignorant of all but the merestfraction
of them.”
Professor Kuhn, who issaid t o be “ no proficient in
Ban~krit,~’ wasasked t o give his own opinion of the
Worterbuch, and of course praised the:work very highly.
Prof. Weber rushes into the stamgeat once, and warmly
defends it againstevery one. A detailedcriticism on
t h e “ vain labors ” of these “ Saturnalia of Sanskrit Philo-
logy ” will be found in Goldstiicker’s Pdnini, His Place in
Xanskrit Literature, pp. 241-268.
Prof.Weber himself acknowledges, althoughnot in
t h e plainestlanguage, that hehad,whilelecturing on
Indian Literature, made only a superficial study of t h e
“Mahãbhäshya (History of Indian Literatwe, p. 224, note).
35
the opinions of HinduwritersandPandits.Very
often facts and dates are taken by these writers from
the writings of their predecessors or contemporaries,
on the assumption that they are correct, without any
further investigation by themselves. Even when a
writer gives’a date with an expression of doubt as to
its accuracy, his follower frequently quotes the same
dateas if it were absolutelycorrect.” * *
“ III. It is often assumed without reason that every
passageinthe Vedascontaining philosophical or
metaphysical ideas must be looked upon as a subse-
quent interpolation, and that every book treating of a
philosophicalsubjectmustbe considered ashaving
been written after the time of Buddha, or after the
commencement of the Christian era. Civilisation,
philosophy and scientific investigation had their
origin, in the opinion of these writers, within the six
or sevencenturiesprecedingtheChristianera,and
mankind slowly emerged for the first time from ‘ the
depths of animalbrutlality ’ within thelastfour
or five thousand years.
“IT. It is also assumed that Buddhism was brought
into existence by GautamaBuddha.Theprevious
existence of Buddhism, Jainism and Arhat philosophy
is rejected as an absurd and ridiculous invention of
the Buddhists and others, who attempted thereby to
assign a very high antiquity to their own religion. I n
consequence of this erroneous impression every Hindu
book referring t o the doctrines of the Buddhists is
 36
declared to have been written subsequent to the time
of Gautama, Buddha. Por instance, Mr. Weber is of
opinion that Vyäsa, the author of BrahmaSütras,
wrote them in the fifth century after Christ. This is
indeeda startling revelation t o the majority of
Hindus.
“V. Wheneverseveralworkstreating of various
subjects a,re attribut,edto one and the same author, by
Hindu writings or traditions, it is often assumed, and
apparently without any reason whatever in the
majority of cases, that the said works should be con-
sidered asthe productions of differentwriters. By
this process of reasoning they have discovered two
Bädariiyanas (Vyäsas) . . We do not mean to say that
in every case identity of name is equivalent to identity
of personality. But we cannotbutprotest against
suchassumptions when they are made withoutany
evidence t o support them, merely for the purpose of
supportingaforegone conclusion or establishing a
favorite hypothesis.
“ We have enumerated these defects in the writings
of European Orientalists for the purpose of showing to
our readers that I t 1s not always sa,feto rely upon the
conclusions arrived at by these writers regarding the
dates of ancient Indian Eistory.”
Professor Bhandarkar, who was present in Vienna
on the occasion of one of the International Congresses
The TJzeosophist, Vol. IV, p. 304, et seq.
37
of Orientalists, and who had therefore an opportunity
of becoming personally acquainted withmany Western
Orientalists, says in his lecture delivered ia Bombay
i n 1878 ’ after his return Erom Europe, that tlhe so-
called (‘Sanskrit Professors ” of the West,possess only
so much knowledge of Sanskrit as to enable them t o
translate into their own languages works written in
Yuränic, but not in a more difficult style (e.g., that of
Siibara’s Bhäshya on the Mimämsa Sützas, S’ri
Sankar~ichärya’s Bhäshya on the Brahma Sütras,
Tatwachint5manil of Gangësöpãdhyãya, or the works of
Udayanächärya). Our own impression is that most
of then1 (Western Orientalists) areacquainted only
with the names of philosophical and other works, and
if at all they have studied those works, it is only very
superficiaZZy ; and hence it is quite natural that they
should conunit errors and fallacies in their writings.
‘Onthe other hand, the Hindu Pandits study their own
literature systematically under a well-trained teacher,
who is one in the long line of teachers, each of whola
iransmitsthe doctrines andtruthsto his successor
who is below him in the list. But unfortunately they
d o n o t possess any knowledge of any of the western
languages, such as English, French and German, in
whichtreatisesandotherpublicationsrelating to
SanskritLiteratureand istory are written. B u t if
once the ideas and mode of thinking of the Orientalists
i V i d e the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal
Asiatic Society f o r P887.
 38 39

are made known to them, they will produce wonderful
results. It is a matter of deep regret that our Indian
graduates do notgenerally possess anenterprising
spirit, and are indifferent t o furthering the progress of
the study of Sanskrit, especially works like the Mahii-
bhgshya. They generally depend,owing t o their ignor-
ance of Sanskrit, for their information, on western
translations, or western compilations fromSanskrit
works. These unfortunate circumstances attendanton
the Indianpeople can only be remedied by our Univer-
sity students continuing, with tjhe aidof good Pandits,
their Sanskrit studies-more especially of the Vedas,
Srauta Sütras, etc.-even after obtaining their degrees.
Our Western Orientalists would do well, before
becoming Professors of Sanskrit in
the west’ern
Universities, t o come toIndia, and systematically
study’ the Sanskrit, language, and its literature in all
its branches under well-known Pandits or in the
Sanskrit Colleges or institutions established in India,
viz., those of Benares, Calcutta or Mysore.
One word more. Our EuropeanOrientalists wilE
confer a great boon o n Indian Panditmaif they (Orien-
talists of Europe) would take the troubleof expressing
in the Sanskrit language theirviews regarding Indian
antiquity and literature in order that the Panditsmay
become more easily acquainted with their views ; f o r
ít is a more difficult thing for Pandits t o learn three
European languages,cdz., English, German and French,
for knowingwhat theEuropean Orientalists think
aboutthemand the Indian literature, than for the
Orientalists themselves-who are mostly Professors,
of Sanskrit, teaching that language t o many Univer-
sity students-to write in Sanskrit.

Professor Max Müller feels this necessity more in the

study of Piirvarnirnämsa than that of any other system of
philosophy or subject, as may be seen by his letter t o the
late Mr. M. M. Kunte, dated 21st June 1877 : .. “ But to
the scholar the Pürvamirnãmsa is of great interest, and I
havealways thoughtthat we wantedanative Indian
scholar t o translateand properly interpret it. It is so
full of allusions to Yãgnika matters which are familiar to
your Srotriyas, but [of which] we in Europe have a very
vague and indistinct eonception.” Professor Bhandarkar,
too advocated this step in his lecture in Bombay in 1887.
 -, I -

T k E ADYAR PAMPHLE7.S

1
Vol. I I
.

Elementary Lessons on Karma. AFJNIEBESANT

The Fundamental Idea of Theosqphy, l BHAGAVANDAS .
.

The
Life of Buddha and Its Lessons. H. S. OLCOTT j f

Educationinthe Light of Theosophy, ANNIEBESANT

On theBhagauad-Gita, RAOAND NOBINBANNERJI
SUBBA
/

The Future' Socialism. ANNIE BESANT

Oecultism, Semi-Occultism and Pseudo-Occultism,
9 ANNIEBESANT i

The Law of Cause and Effect. C. W. LEADBEATER

Mysticism. ANNIE BESANT ,
Printed by Annie Besant, at the Vasantii Press,Adyar. _Aspects of the Christ. ANNIE BESANT- .,
The Spirit of Zoroastrianism. H. S . OLCOTT - .

The Bratherhood of Religions. ANNIE BESANT .

.,
' Vol, III1 ~- .
Some Difficulties sf the Innep
Life. ANNIE BESANT I

i he Yision of-the Spirit. c. JINARA3ADASA * .

Yegetarianism in the Eight of Theosophy. ANNIEBESANT ~

Corsespondenees between the Planes. Da. VANH-OOK,

%heInfluence of the East on Religion. R. HEBER NEWTON
I&. ANNIEBESANT
T. SUBBA RAO 1
~

ANNIE --
C. W. LEADBESANT
BEAT^^^ ~ .
- I

Englaad
T L I ~ and-Pndia.
~ u of~ T n ~~ ~e ~ on
s the
o ~ ~ an
Y ANNIEBESANT ~ 3 , -~
-~

YANENDRANATH CHAKRAVARTI
kk&iIE BESANT' - .
'= J .. ,'. -.
1~
r 3
I / / ~ 8
' . ! s \ . -* - - =
,./ _ t a _ -

~ . d , -- _ , - A I ' -i -
.-1.