The Age of Patanjali
Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, Madras. India
September 1915
[Page
1]
IT
is well known that Patanjali was the author of the Mahãbhãshya,
the great commentary on Pãnini's grammar; and the
author of the Yoga Sûtras is also called by that name.
Some scholars are in doubt as to the identity of these two
authors, and several Orientalists [ Such as Bohtlingk,
Max Müller, Weber and Goldstüker] fix the
date of the Mahãbhãshya, each
from his own standpoint, and varying from 250 B. C. to 60
after Christ. The object of this paper is therefore to enquire
into: — (a) the probable date of
Patanjali, the author of the Mahãbhãshya, and
(b) the supposed identity of the author of the Mahãbhãshya
with that of the Yoga Sûtras.
The
name Patanjali is not of infrequent occurrence in Sanskrit
literature. In Brihadãrãnyakõpanishad [5th
Adhyãya,
3rd and 7th Brahmanas, or page 163
of the Madras Edition of 108 Upanishads] a Patanjala
of Kapigõtra is
mentioned: in Pãnini's Ganapãta [ 6th
Adhyãya,
under Vãrtika of Sûtra, I,
i, 64: also II, iv, 69. Throughout the essay quotations like
I, i, 64, refer to the Adhyãya, the Pãda and
the number of the Sûtra – but never to Ânhikas — of
the Mahãbbhãshya or the Ashtãdhyãyi
of Pãnini,
as the case may be] the names Patanjali and Patanjala occur: [Page
2]
and the same name (Patanjali) is also found in Siddhãnta Kaumudi [page 8, Nirnaya Sãgara’s Edition (Bombay)] under the Vãrtika of Vararuchi, (also called Kãtyãyana).
Patanjali,
the author of the Mahãbhãshya, was born at
Gõnarda, a tract of
country in Cashmere, and his mother's name was Gõnika, [ page
8, Nirnaya Sãgara’s Edition (Bombay)]
and he refers to himself as Gõnikãputra [ I,
iv, 51] and Gõnardiya [ I, i, 21];
which the commentator (Kaiyata) explains as referring to
Patanjali. In Purushõttamá's Lexicon [Trikãnda
Sêsha, p
33 (Benares)] he is called Gõnardiya,
Bhãshyakãra,
Chûrnikrit and
Patanjali. In Hêmachandrês Lexicon he is
called Gõnardiya, and Patanjali. [page
131 Calcutta Edition]
Note
I, page 1. — I may also include the name
of Dr. Peterson of Bombay who thinks (in the Indian Antiquary,
Vol. XII, p. 353) that the Mahãbhãshya
might have been written in the 2nd century A.C., for
he makes the Pushyamitra mentioned in that work identical
with one Pushyamitra, who, he says, was defeated
by Skandagupta. As Skandagupta reigned about the end
of the 2nd century, it follows that Patanjali lived about
that time. This is, however, replied to by Dr. Bhandarkar,
in the same volume, saying that the inscription on which
Dr. Peterson based his arguments mentions that Skandagupta
defeated “
Pushiamitras” (and not Pushiamitran) — which
means “the tribe of
Pushiyamitra”. He supports his own date (144-142 B.C.)
which he gave previously (in the Indian Antiquary, Vol. I,
p. 299, et seq.), on his
supposition that the Pushyamitra of the Mahãbhãshya
is the same as Pushyamitra of the Sunga family who
began to reign about 178 B.C By the by, Dr Weber thinks (Indian
Antiquary, Vol II, p 206) that
Pushyamitra is the correct form of the word; and Dr
Bhãndãrkar, too, thinks
the same (Ibid, p 59). The former thinks so, because
the Jain corruption is
Pupphamitra, and thus the original Sanskrit word must
be Pushpomitra.
We regret we have to differ from both, on the ground that
all the MSS of the Mahãbhãshya we have consulted
invariably give Pushyamitra and not
Pushpamitra.
Note
2 and 3, page 2. — Dr
Kielhorn thinks (Indian Antiquary, Vol. XIV
pp. 82-83) that Gõnardiya, and Gõnikaputra
do not apply to Patanjali but to some other grammarians.
In reply we should say that Kiyyata (already noticed) and
his commentators explain that terms do refer to Patanjali.[Page
3] 1.
In the Mahabhashya [V, iii, 99 ] the Mouryas are
mentioned; they were all Buddhists according to the
Buddhistic records. This Mouryan dynasty and its founder
Chandragupta are mentioned in the Vishnu and other Purãnas;
and he is identical with Sandracottus who is
said to have been, according to Megasthenes, Strabo,
etc., a contemporary of Alexander and Seleucus. [Max
Müller’s History of
Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp 297-298] Hence
he lived about the time of Chandragupta.
2.
In the Mahãbhãshya, [ III, ii, 101.
Here Pãnini lays down that the
imperfect should be used when the speaker relates a past
action belonging to a time which precedes the present. Vararuchi
observes that the imperfect is also used when the event related
is out of sight, and at the same time famous but could be
seen by the person who uses the verb. Patanjali adds to this
Vãrtika of Vararuchi’s the following instances
with remark — “Arunadyavana Sãkãtham”, “Arunãdyavano
Mãdhyamikãn”. The
“Yavanas besieged (imperfect) Sãketa“,
the “Yavanas be sieged
(imperfect) Mãdhyamikãs”.
Here the commentators explain that Patanjali who uses these
expression lived at that time, although not on the spot,
when the Yavanas besieged Oudh and the Mãdhyamikãs] the
invasions, by Yavanas, of Sãketa or Oudh, and
of the Mãdhyamikãs,
a Buddhist sect, are mentioned: although he was not an eye-witness,
he could have seen them, as they took place at the time,
of the composition of the great commentary. The term Yavana applies
to the Grecians, and hence the Grecian invasion is alluded
to. Hence the Mahãbhãshya was
composed about [Page
5] 140
B.C., the date of the Grecian (or Graeco-Bactrian) invasion
of Oudh by Menander. [Goldstücker’s Pãnini, etc,
page 234]
Again,
the Mãdhyamikãs were followers of
Nãgãrjuna. This
Nãgãrjuna lived, according to Northern
Buddhists, 400 years after, and according to Southern Buddhists,
500 years after, Buddha's Nirvãna, which took place
in 477 B.C. according to the former, and 543 B.C. according
to the latter. This would place Nãgãrjuna
between 77 — 43 B.C.. The invasion of Mãdhyamikãs
having occurred during the time of Patanjali, his date would
probably be about the time. 3.
The Hall of one Chandragupta, [ I, i, 68. “Chandragupta-sabha,
Pushyamitra-sabha”, the Hall of Chandragupta, the Hall
of Pushyamitra] who is said to have lived about 327
B.C., and that of Pushyamitra (who was, according to Rãjatarangini,
a history of Cashmere, a Buddhist prince), as well as a sacrifice
by him [ III, i, 26; III, ii, 101] are mentioned
in the Mahãbhãshya.
4.
Rãjatarangini mentions the Mahãbhãshya
and says that one Chandrãcharya, himself a grammarian,
introduced its study into Cashmere when Abhimanyu [Page
6] reigned
in that country, which was in A.D. 40 (according to coins).
Hence we are not wrong in supposing that Pãnini
and Kãtyãyana lived in the beginning of
the 3rd century B.C., and Patanjali in the 3rd century
B.C. [Max Müller’s History of Ancient
Sanskrit Literature, page
244; also Weber’s History of Indian Literature pp
219-220 (Note)]
5.
Hiouen Thsang says that Kãtyãyana lived 300
years after the time of Buddha, that is about 240 B.C. ;
the Kãtyãyana referred to is, therefore,
Kãtyãyana, author of the Vãrtika.
If Kãtyãyana lived about 240 B.C.,
Patanjali, who quotes him, flourished about 200
B.C. [Bohtlingk ] 6.
The Yoga Sûtras of Patanjali contain several
Buddhistic views. Hence Patanjali flourished at any rate
after Buddhism had sprung up.
7.
Bãdarãyana refutes, in his Brahma
Sûtras (II, ii, 3), the
Yoga system of philosophy. Hence Patanjali, the founder
of the system of Yoga, flourished before Bãdarãyana.
Now as Pãnini [ IV, iii, 110,111 ] alludes
to the Brahma Sûtras, and their author Pãrãsarya,
it follows that Pãnini flourished after the time
of Pãrãsarya or Bãdarãyana;
and much more therefore Patanjali the author of the Mahãbhãshya.
Thus we have two Patanjalis, one the author of the Mahãbhãshya,
who flourished after the time of Bãdarãyana,
and the [Page
7] other,
before the time of Bãdarãyana. Their identity
is therefore highly improbable. Let
us examine the Mahãbhãshya and the Yoga Sûtras
themselves and find out how far these arguments are sound. In
reply to No. 1 of the arguments of the Western Orientalists: 1)
The Mahãbhãshya says that the Mouryas [V,
iii, 39. In India, at the present day, there are several
wandering tribes known variously by the names Dãsaris
(Tamil), Guduguduppãndy (Tamil), Budubudukalavãdu
(Telugu), Langãris (Hindustani). They, just like the Mouryas, take
on their heads a small almirah, in which are kept wooden images
of certain deities which they call Poturãju, Polêramma,
etc, and unknown to the Hindu Pantheon, coloured in divers
ways, and varnished: some of them carry these images on their
bosoms or hands. When they go a-begging, they recite certain
prayers to the deities which the images represent, in a language
which seems to be an admixture of Telugu, Hindustani and dialects
of the Indian gypsies or Chenchus (a hill tribe belonging to
Cuddapah and Kurnool Districts of the Madras Presidency). They
do not belong to any of the Sudra classes, as the Velamas,
Naidus, Modêliars, Vellalars, etc, and are by their habits
and customs exclusively non-Âryans. These are known in
India from a long time; perhaps these tribes are the remains
of the Mouryas of Patanjali.] were makers and worshipers of
idols, such as those of Siva, Skanda and Visãkha, and
were begging from door to door, taking these idols with them.
If, according to the Buddhist records, the Mouryas had belonged
to a royal family instead of being beggars, then these Mouryas
mentioned in the Buddhist records must be quite different from
those mentioned in the Mahãbhãshya.[Page
8]
If
the Aryans were worshipers of idols, he would have said
so; on the contrary he alludes [Vide also
Tandya Mahabrahmana, IV, 27, and Brihadranyaka 5th Adhyaya,
9th Brahmana, Rig Veda, 8, 4, 28, I, etc.] all
along in his work to the Aryan worship of the 33 Vedic
Gods . It is therefore conclusive that when he speaks of
the idol worship of the Mouryas, a non-Aryan tribe is meant. We
also know that the descendants of Chandragupta, who were
called Mouryas (from the fact that Chandragupta is called
by the Purãnas,
Mourya, being the illegitimate son of Nanda, by Mura, a slave
girl) were very famous Buddhists, for under their influence
Buddhism spread over India and foreign countries, such as
Ceylon, etc.; and the Great Council by the name of Sangha
convened, monasteries were built and edifices constructed.
It is therefore absurd to imagine that they begged from door
to door and made such idols as those of Siva, Skanda, Visãkha.
Hence the Mouryas who were poor and who earned their livelihood
by (making and) selling images, were not a tribe in any way
connected with the Mouryas [Page
9] who
were ruling princes, such as Chandragupta, Asôka,
etc.
The
old MSS. (of the Mahãbbãshya) of the South
make the allusion of making and selling idols apply not
to Mouryas but to Pouras, a peculiar
tribe also mentioned in the Vishnu Purãna [Amsa,
4, ch xxiv or p 326 (Madras Edition). for example MSS. Nos.
31, 33 of the Adyar Library, which are, on palaeographical
examination, found to be more than 3 and 4 centuries respectively,
may be consulted. If Pouras be the right word, so
much controversy about the allusion of Patanjali to the Mouryas
will vanish at once. 2)
Regarding argument No. 2, we must carefully examine the
term Yavana. It is of frequent occurrence in Sanskrit
literature; and every Western Orientalist, from the time
of Sir William Jones to that of Professor Max Müller,
says that it invariably implies the Greeks. This term
is derived from the Sanskrit root yu = to mix or to be
swift, implying a mixed or a swift race.
It
occurs in Pãnini, [IV, i, 49] and Kãtyãyana
says in his Vartikas, that when the “Alphabet of the Yavanas” is
meant, the affix ãnuk should be
added to the word Yavana, and this becomes Yavanãni. [Siddhanta
Kaumudi, p 61, Bombay Edition] Even granting
for argument's sake that Panini lived in the [Page
10] 6th
century B.C. according to Professor Max Müller [ History
of Ancient Sanskrit Literature] — and
certainly he lived several centuries earlier — it
is plain that neither Pãnini nor Kãtyãyana
used the term Yavana in their works to mean the
Grecian alphabet, for it would not have been introduced
into India before the invasion of Alexander in the 4th
century B.C. Dr. Goldstücker [Pãnini, page
16] thinks that Yavanani signifies
the cuneiform writing, and being peculiar in its character
when compared with Sanskrit, it must have been known during
the time of Pãnini.
To
show that the term is of frequent occurrence in Sanskrit
literature, the following instances may be quoted :
Manu [ch.
X, v, 144, 45] says that the Ayvanas, Kãmbhõjas,
etc., were originally Kshatriyas, but became outcastes
by neglecting their Vedic duties, etc.
In
Gautama Dharma Sûtra, [Sacred Books of the
East, Vol 2. Part 1, Ch IV, v 21. (page 196)] it
is stated that the Yavanas are a mixed (Pratilõma)
caste of Aryas.
In
the Rãmãyana of Vãlmiki, [Bãlakãnda, canto
55, verse 3 (p 34 Madras Edition)] the term Yavana
occurs indicating a tribe who fought during the war of Visvãmitra.
The Mahãbhãrata,
[Âdiparva, ch Ixxxv, 34 (page 119,
Madras Edition)] while giving out [Page
11] the
genealogy of the ancient kings, speaks of the Yavanas as
the descendants of Durvasu, son of Yayãti.
In
the Vishnu Pûrãna, [Amsa 2, ch III, v
8 (p 137, Madras Edition)] it is stated, while describing
the Bharata Varsha or India, that the Yavanas live in the
west, the Kirãtas in the east, and the four Indian
castes in the middle, of India; and it is also said that [Amsa
4, ch VI, 20, 21, (p 287, ibid)] the Yavanas
were driven out by Sagara, a descendant of Ikshvãku,
to the countries lying beyond the borders of India, after
having shaved their heads (under the advice of Vasishta),
although they were Kshatriyas. Further, the same Parana, [Amsa
4, ch, XXIV, (page 326, ibid)] while
giving details of the “future dynasties of Kali Yuga”, says
that eight Yavanas will rule over India.
Kãlidãsa
in his Raghuvamsa [Book IV, v, 61, 62] describes
the victories of Raghu over the Pãrasikas: and
in so doing he mentions the Yavanis or
Parasika women.
Most
of the Smritis denounce the association of the Aryans with
the Yavanas at the table as highly sinful. In
Garga Samhita the Yavanas are highly spoken of, for
their special knowledge of astronomy and astrology. [page
8 (Calcutta Edition) of the Brihat Samhita Chapter II,
v, 15] From
Kãsikavritti and Vishnu Purãna we learn
that it was the custom among the Yavanas to get [Page
12] their
heads wholly shaved — a statement
which the national custom of the Greeks could never sanction;
for when Demosthenes got his head shaved, he sought to
conceal himself in a cell in order that he might not appear
in public, and that he might not be therefore disturbed
in his studies. [Lemprière’s Classical
Dictionary. Art. Demosthenes] With
reference to Dr. Goldstücker's supposition [Goldstücker’s Pãnini,
page 234] that the invasion of the Graeco-Bactrians
under Menander (about 144 B.C.) is meant, when Patanjali
used the expression “the Yavanas besieged
Sãkêta (Oudh)”, we should say that, according
to the latest researches, Menander never came to Oudh, but
only up to the Jumna: and in order that he might come to
Oudh he should have gone 300 miles eastward.
[vide Dr Rãjêndralalã Mitra’s Indo-Âryans:
Contributions towards the Elucidation of their Ancient
and Mediaeval History. Vol II, page193] That
the Hindus apply the term Yavana to
all foreigners, not only Greeks, who were living west
of the Indus, is plain from the foregoing quotations
and considerations: also that the event which took place
during the time of Patanjali is not identical with any
of the Grecian invasions; and that the identity of the
Yavanas with the Greeks is purely imaginary, and to prove
it no evidence is forthcoming from records, Indian or
foreign. [As an example
of the tendency of the Hindus to give an indefinite name
to several foreign nations and tribes, I may say that
at the present day, any European nation, the English,
the French, or any other, is generally termed Hûna by
the orthodox Brahmins. It also seems that this has been
the case from a long time. The word Hûna is generally
taken to mean “white-skinned
people''. The
Bhãgavata Purãna mentions ''the Hûnas,
Kirãtas, Andhras”, etc., as
having followed the teachings of Krishna, and thus become
pure. In the Raghuvamsa of Kãlidãsa (Canto
4, v, 69), “Hûna women”, are described.
Vãmanãchãrya mentions the Hûnas
in his Kãvyãlankãra Sûtravritti
(written about the 12th century, according to Weber); and
Appiah Dikshita, who lived about the 16th century, quotes
in his Chitra-mimãmsa, a work on
Rhetoric, the verses from Vãmanãchãrya's
Kãvyãlankãra Sûtravritti,
which mention the word “Hûnas''. Even Venkathcharya,
who lived last century, mentions in his Visvagunãdarsa
(vv, 411, 414, 415, or page 93, Madras Edition) the English
and the French as living near the Vishnu temple at Triplicane
(Madras); and elsewhere he uses the term (Yavana) to mean
the Mussalman (vv, 253, 254, p. 57, Madras Edition). From
all these one is naturally led to suppose that the meaning
of the word Hûna, like that of the
word Yavana, gradually changed from its original signification,
and adapted itself to the times, meaning the particular nation
or nations that each of these authors came in contact with. that
they had no footing in the country. On the contrary,
one would naturally expect the Mãdhyamikãs
to seek friendship with the Yavanas to make common cause
against the Hindus.
Now
the territory was bounded on the north by the Himãlayas,
on the south by the Vindhya Mountains, on the east by Allahabad,
and on the west, Vinasana, the place where the river Saraswati
submerges underground, is called Madhyadêsa. [Manu, ch.
II, 21] Madhya and Madhyama,
being synonymous, the word “Mãdhyamika”, means the
people of Madhyadêsa,
and when Patanjali said “the Yavanas besieged the Madhyamikãs”,
the expression would naturally imply that the foreign invaders
who penetrated into India through the Panjab should first
attack the country lying between Rajputana and Allahabad
on their way to Sãkêta or Oudh; and this
explanation of ours is greatly strengthened when we find
Patanjali himself explaining [V, iii, 2 (Anhika)] the
term Mãdhyamikã (Mãdhyamikãn)
to mean “people or towns belong to Madhyadêsa”.
3)
On carefully examining several old MSS. of the Mahãbhãshya,
written in Telugu and Grantha characters, we do not find
any mention of Chandragupta's Hall in I, i, 68; only Pushyamitra's
Hall is mentioned here and his name given elsewhere. [ III,
i, 26] [Page
15] Dr.
Kielhorn's Edition of the Mahãbhãshya may,
in this connection, be consulted with advantage. The Hall
of Chandragupta occurs in Dr. Ballantyne's Edition (page
758).
It
is highly improbable that the Greek Sandracottus,
who is said to have been a contemporary of Alexander and
Seleucus, was identical with a Chandragupta, for he was
one of the many Chandraguptas in Indian literature. For
example, there is one Chandragupta in the Gupta dynasty,
and also one Chandrasri who lived long after the Chandragupta,
son of Nunda, by Mura, and after whom foreigners, such as
Yavanas and Sakas, were said to rule the country. [Vishnu
Purana, Amsa, 4. ch XXIV]
Regarding
Pushyamitra, Rajatarangini mentions a prince of that
name as having ruled over the Bahlika country, which
is identified by the Orientalists with the modern Balkh,
the birth-place of Zoroaster; and in the Mahãbhãshya [ III,
i, 26; III, ii, 101] we read that “Pushyamitra performed
a sacrifice”, and several Brahmins attended the sacrifice
and assisted the king.
Now
the boundaries of the Âryãvarta during the time
of Patanjali [II, iv, I:
VI, iii, 109. The northern and southern boundaries were the
Himãlayas and
the Pãriyathra Mountains (Vindhya).] were fixed from
the Aravalli Hills to the Black Forest in Behar, and the
Aryans who [Page
16] lived
in this tract were holy and superior. This Bãhlika
country was therefore outside the
Âryãvarta, and hence a Mlêchha country,
and no Aryan would enter it. Even the king himself could
not have performed a sacrifice in a Mlêchha
country, such a thing being opposed to the Smritis; and
the author of the Mahabhashya himself remarks that the goats
of the Bhalika country are quite unfit for sacrificial purposes.
[I, i, 15 (p 377 — Dr Ballantyne’s
Edition)].
Or,
if we suppose, according to the Western Orientalists,
that he was a Buddhist prince, there is no reason to think
that he ever performed a sacrifice, and still less a Vedic
sacrifice. Pushyamitra is
the name of several Aryan kings, like Dasaratha, Dilîpa,
and Parikshit, as would appear from the Puranas. A Pushyamitra
of Sunga family, who killed his master and established a
throne, is mentioned in the Vishnu Purana, and other Puranas;
and his son, Agnimitra, is the hero of Kalidasa's drama,
Malavikagnimitra. This Pushyamitra performed an Asvamedha
sacrifice, according to the same drama. But we should not
in any way be understood as identifying the Pushyamitra
of the Mahãbhãshya with the Pushyamitra of
either Mãlavikãgnimitra or Rãjatarangini.
Patanjali
mentions in the Mahãbhãshya the Hall of
Chandragupta as well as that of Pushyamitra. If, on this
basis, Chandragupta be considered as the contemporary [Page
17] of
Alexander and Seleucus, why should not Pushyamitra too
be considered his (Alexander's) contemporary ? 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 it is quite common among grammarians,
while giving illustrations to the rules to use such names
as Dêvadatta, Yagnadatta, and Vishnumitra, [These
three names frequently occur in the illustrations of the
Mahãbhãshya,
something like John comes,
John goes, where no reference is made to a particular
John — much less
King John of England or S. John the Apostle. Such names
are called Yãthrichhika Sabdas ] and these
being well known as Brahminical names, and that such common
names of kings should be added to the expressions like “The
Hall of ...........” and “.......... sacrifices”,
such names as Chandragupta and Pushyamitra were chosen
at random.
4)
Rãtarangini is a work written by Kalhana Pandit in
the 12th century after Christ, and is a compilation made
by him from vague traditions current in his time. [pages
213-214, Weber’s History of Indian Literature] No
reliance should therefore be placed on such a work as this,
and much less should it be consulted for the solution of
a historical problem. The fact of Chandracharya's having
introduced the study of the Mahãbhashya into
Cashmere in the 1st century A.C., does not necessarily lead
us to the conclusion that Patanjali lived only three centuries [Page
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 compiled only two or three centuries ago!
5)
From Stanislaus Julien's translation of Hiouen Thsang's
travels, [Max Müller’s History of Ancient
Sanskrit Literature, pp,
305-9] it is clear (a) that the Kãtyãyana
referred to by the Chinese traveler was a Buddhist, whereas
the author of the Vartikas was a Brahmin, (b) that the Kãtyãyana
of Hiouen Thsang was the author of a metaphysical work on
Buddhism, which the traveler himself translated into Chinese,
and (c) that, except in name, all the details given by Hiouen
Thsang differ from those of Kãtyãyana,
the grammarian.
Again,
to one of the Sutras [VIII, ii, 50] of Pãnini,
Kãtyãyana adds a
Vãrtika to explain the term Nirvãna and
says that it means “to blow out”.
Thereupon Patanjali explains by giving various illustrations, “the
fire is blown out by the wind”, “the lamp is blown out
by the wind”, etc [M. Burnouf was
the first to create the misconception that Nirvana meant
annihilation. The Paranirvãna Sûtra
does not give that meaning even. Prof. Max Müller
laboured, until recently, under the same misconception.
On the other hand Nirvãna means with
them (1) Negatively, state of absolute exemption
from the circle of transmigration, state of entire freedom
from all forms of existence, etc. (2) Positively, Nirvãna
is the highest state of spiritual bliss, absolute immortality
through absorption of the soul into itself, but preserving
individuality [so that e.g. Buddhas
after entering Nirvãna may reappear on
earth] For further particulars see Beal’s Catena
of Chinese Scriptures, p
172 and Dr E.J. Eitel’s Handbook of Chinese Buddhism,
being a Sanskrit Chinese Dictionary–(Hong-Kong, 1888)] If
Kãtyãyana,
or [Page
19] Patanjali,
lived during or after the life-time of Sãkyamuni
(as is supposed by some), surely they, as grammarians,
would have noticed the Buddhistic interpretation of the
word Nirvãna which is of the greatest importance
in the Buddhistic philosophy; but as they did not, we are
at liberty to say that neither of them lived after the
introduction of Buddhism by Sãkyamuni,
which carried this peculiar interpretation.
The
name Kãtyãyana is also of frequent occurrence
in Sanskrit literature. There is one Kãtyãyana,
author of Kalpa, [Pãnini alludes to several
Kalpa Sûtras in IV, iii, 106, Âsvalãyana
was a disciple of Sounaka, and Kãtyãyana the
author of Kalpa Sûtras, and as Prãtisãkhya
was a disciple of Asvalãyana. All the Prãtisãkhyas
differ in many respects from many of Pãnini’s
rules. Hence the Kãtyãyana who was the author
of a Prãtisãkhya,
and Kalpa Sûtras, etc. was anterior to Pãnini] and
Grihya Sûtras, and
Sarvãnukramani who was a disciple of Âsvalãyana;
and the same name is also that of the author of several Parisishtas
and a Prãtisãkhya
of Sukla Yajur Yeda, while the author [Page
20] of
the Vãrtika on Pãnini is also called
by that name. [According to Kathãsãrit
Sãgara of Somadêva,
Kãtyãyana studied along with Pãnini,
and with Vyãdi, the grammer of
Indra under Upavarshopãdhyãya in Pãtaliputra;
and he was born in Kousãmbi, a town on the banks
of the Jumna, somewhere near Agra; his father's name was
Sômadatta, of Sankriti Gôtra and his mother's
name Sônôttara. The name Upavarsha is
not only peculiar to Kathãsãrit Sãgara,
but also to lexicographers; vide page 131,
Hêmachandra's Lexicon (Calcutta Edition) and Purushôttama
Deva's Trikãndasêsha, page 33 (Benares
Edition). Upavarsha was a commentator on Jaimini's Pûrva
Mimãmsa
Sûtras, and Bãdarãyana's
Brahma Sûtras; his works are quoted by Sabaraswami
in his commentary on Jaimini's (page 12, Calcutta Edition,
A. S. B.) and by Srî
Sankarãcharya in his commentary on Brahma Sûtras
(pp. 291, 953, Calcutta Edition of Asiatic Society of Bengal)] The
Mahãbhãshya
[IV, iii, 116]. mentions a poem of Kãtyãyana’s,
and from it we find that he was also called Vararuchi. It
may perhaps be the case that the several persons called by
the name of Kãtyãyana [There is
one Vararuchi, author of Lingônusâsana (rules
of gender) who is said to have lived in the Court of one
Vikramãditya as would appear
from the last verses of his work (Benares Edition). The Jyotirvidãbharana,
the authorship of which is erroneously attributed to
Kãlidãsa, mentions a Varararuchi as having
lived in the Court of the said Vikramãditya. Vãkyaganita,
otherwise called Girnasrêyadhivãkya,
a work on Astronomical tables (according to the system of
Aryabhãtta), and on
which the calculations of Vãkyapunchãngam (calendar,
according to the system of Vãkyaganita) of
South India are based, is said to be the work of one Vararuchi
who lived in the 6th century A.C. From these one may naturally
conclude that the Kãtyãyana who was the author
of the Vãrtika,
etc, cannot be identified with any other Kãtyãyana
or Vararuchi.] were descendants [Page
21] of one and
the same Rishi, [According to a well known rule of
grammar, all the descendants of a Kãtyãyana may
be called by that name] and lived in different times
and wrote different works: even Mahãkãtyãyana,
a disciple of Buddha, and Kãtyãyana, the
author of a work on Buddhist metaphysics (translated by
Hiouen Thsang) might have been lineal descendants of one
and the same original Kãtyãyana
Rishi.
6)
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 Pãnini, Kãtyãyana, [Kãtyãyana,
the author of the Vãrtika on Pãnini, of the
poem Varaucha, and
of the Slõkas called
Bhrãja (Mahãbhãshya, 1st Anhika,
pp 23-24, Ballantyne’s Edition is
altogether different from the author of Kalpa Sûtras,
Prãtisãkhya,
etc, and who is also called Vararuchi (Trikãndasêsha,
Slõka 85, page 33, Benares
Edition); and the same person by the names of Medhãjit,
and Punarvasu (page 131 of Hêmachandra’s Lexicon, Calcutta
Edition)] and Patanjali, in which the word Nirvana is
mentioned; and there we have shown that Patanjali was not
aware of the Buddhistic interpretation of that word. Patanjali
in his Yoga Sûtras mentions the Îsvara, [I,
23, 24, 26] and speaks of the necessity of the study
of the Vedas, [II, I.] and
uses a word Kaivalya [ IV, 25–33] different
from Nirvana to signify
the same idea. [Page
22] The
theories of Karma, Re-incarnation, etc., are quite common not
only to 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 this is found in the Yoga Sûtras,
and hence that these Sûtras were written after
Buddhism had sprung up. To this, we reply, that the performance
of sacrifice — and hence killing of animals for sacrificial
purposes — is enjoined
only on Grihasthas (married men), but not on Brahmachãris
(bachelors) or Yatis (ascetics). The rules laid down in the
Yoga Sûtras do not apply to
Grihasthas, but only to Naishtika Brahmachãris (those
bachelors who wish to remain as such throughout their lives), Vãnaprasthãs (those
that go to forests with their wives for the purpose of meditation),
or Yatis (ascetics)
— more especially the last named order; also those
Vãnaprasthãs
who practice Yoga should not perform sacrifices. 7)
In reply to the seventh argument we should say that Patanjali
was not the founder of the Yoga system of philosophy.
Hiranyagarbha, a Maharishi, was the founder of this system
[Vãchaspati Misra, a commentator on
Vyãsadêva’s Bhãshya on Patanjali’s
Yoga Sûtras,
explains the word Anusasana in the 1st aphorism
(Atha Yogãnusãsanam) thus: “The doctrine
of Yoga had been founded by Hiranyagarbha and others, Patanjali
simply promulgated it, by supplementing it, and hence it
is called Anusãsanam] and it was promulgated [Page
23] by
his successors, Vãrshaganya,
Yãjnavalkya, etc., as Âsuri, Panchasika and
others did in the case of Sãnkhya founded by Kapila
Neither the Brahma Sûtras nor the more
famous of its commentators, such as Srî Sankarãchãrya
and others mention by name any philosopher of the Yoga
school. [S’rî
Rãmãnujãchãrya mentions Hiranyagarbha
by name in p 476, Madras Edition, of his Bhãshya] The
expression in the Brahma Sûtras [II, ii,
3.] is: “The Yoga philosophy is condemned on the
same reasons as are given in the previous Sûtra regarding
Sãnkhya”. The
Sãnkhya
and Yoga philosophies are inadmissible for (a) the philosophies
themselves are in contradiction with the doctrine of the
Vedas (Upanishads); (b) the authority of the Vedas are
superior to these philosophies; (c) the founders of these
philosophies, viz., Kapila and 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 other hand, the Sruti (Vedas) is
invariably followed by the majority of the sages. Again,
S'rî
Sankarãchãrya in his commentary on the above
Sûtra quotes an aphorism,
which does not belong to Patanjali's Yoga Sûtras,
as will be found to be [Page
24]
the
case on an examination of that work: but it must either
belong to Hiranyagarbha or Vãrshaganya. [Vedãnta
Sûtra Bhãshya,
Calcutta Edition (Asiatic Society of Bengal), page 496] The
definition of Yoga given in
the Sûtra quoted by S'rî Sankarãchãrya
is that “it is the means of
knowledge of the realities (or truth)”, whereas Patanjali
defines it in his aphorisms [ I, 1, 2] as “the
suspension of the action of the mind”. Two
verses from Hiranyagarbha's work are quoted in the Vishnu
Purãna
[Amsa, 2, ch, xiii, vv 42-45 (p 195, Madras Edition)];
and Vãrshaganya is
mentioned by Vãchaspati Misra in his Bhãmati, [page
332, Benares Edition] a commentary on S'rî Sankarãchãrya's
Vedãnta Sûtra Bhãshya.
Yãgnavãlkya promulgated the same system
in his Yogãyãgnavalkyagîtã,
from which various quotations appear in many philosophical
and other treatises.
From
these considerations it will be seen that the Yoga system
was not founded by Patanjali [Vyãsadêva
(also called Vyãsa or Vedavyãsa)
author of a commentary on Patanjali's Yoga Sûtras,
is generally supposed to be identical with Vedavyãsa,
the author of the Mahãbhãrata, the Brahma
Sûtras, etc. ; and that he, therefore, alluded to his
system in his Brahma Sûtras. If it had been written
by Vedavyãsa (the author of Brahma Sûtras) it
would have been mentioned in Rajamãrtãnda by
Bbõjadêva who, every
one knows, lived after him; nor would S'rî Sankarãchãrya
or S'rî
Rãmãnujãchãrya have neglected
it without making any quotations from it. In Rãjamãrtanda
there is no allusion to any former commentary or Patanjali’s
Yoga Sûtras. Vãchaspati Misra mentions one Vedavyãsa,
commentator on these Yoga Sûtras, and there can be
no doubt that this Vedavyãsa was quite a modern
author, and is in no way connected with the author of the
Brahma Sûtras. For the name is of frequent occurrence.
One Vayãsãcharya is the author of a gloss on
S’rî Rãmãnujãchãrya’s
Bhãshya on the Brahma Sûtras; also the name
of a work called Chandrika,
on the Dwaita philosophy of S’rî Madhavãchãrya
is Vyãsa or
Vyãsarã — besides the fact that
a large number of the followers of S’rî
Madhvãchãrya are called by that name] and
that [Page
25] it
(the Yoga system) existed from a long time before Patanjali,
that he was simply an author of a work on that philosophical
system; and that he lived after the times of Pãnini
and Bãdarãyana.
It
is argued that the systems of philosophy taught in the
Yoga Sûtras and
the Mahãbhãshya are in opposition with each
other, and that one author could not write two such different
works, inculcating two antagonistic philosophical systems.
Even certain contradictory passages are brought forward to
prove that such is the case; to give a few of such contradictions: — (a)
That the Mahãbhãshya advocates
sacrifices of animals, and even remarks that the goats of
the Bãhlika country: [ I,
i, 15, p 81 Benares Edition)] are not fit for sacrifice,
and knows nothing of Buddhism: on the other hand the Yoga
system inculcates the doctrine of Ahimsa in general,
[II, 30, 31, 34, 35] which is the mainstay
of Buddhism, and even the killing of animals for sacrificial
purposes is prohibited, although sanctioned in the Vedas:
(b) Yoga describes [Page
26] Îsvara
[ I, i, 24–26] (God), and
enumerates His attributes; whereas the Mahãbhãshya
believes in a result produced by sacrifice, and considers
that result to be the ultimate one,
[1stAnhika] as advocated by Jaimini, in his
Pûrvamimãmsa, and by several
other Yãgnikas. It should be observed that Patanjali
in his Mahãbhãshya
followed the system of Pãnini, Kãtyãyana,
and Vyãdi [page 43. Ballantyne’s
Edition: Vyãdi was the author of Sangraha, the commentary,
which contains 100,000 granthas of 32 syllables each] (their
commentator); also one Kuni [Kiyyata on
I, i, 175 (pp 87 88. Ballantyne’s
Edition). with whom he agrees on several points. It would
also seem that in his great
commentary Pãtanjali followed the systems
of several grammarians anterior to Pãnini, such
as Âpisali, Bhãradwãja, and Gãrgya,
as will be seen from his allusions to them. [ III,
i, 81, 71 — Vide III,
ii, 15, regarding the meaning of Parôksha (past time
or behind the sight): III, i, 27, about Varthamãnakãla
(present tense)] Further there are several questions
regarding which he does not give any opinion whatever,
but simply gives those of various grammarians, [ IV,
ii, 105. Kãtyãyana
in his Vãrtika on this
Sûtra mentions Yãgnavalkya. Patanjali also
does the same in his Mahãbhãshya. Hence Yãgnavalkya
must be anterior to Patanjali. [Page
27]
One thing
is certain, namely, that while he is the author of the
Yoga Sûtras,
he follows the system founded by Hiranyagarbha — Vãrshaganya
and Yãgnavãlkyã: [Vignãnabhikshu
and Mãdhãvãchãrya were
also authors of several works on different philosophical
systems, such as the Nyãya, the
Mimãmsa, the Sãnkhya, and the Vedãnta] and
while he is a commentator on a grammatical work, he
cannot follow any philosophical system opposed to it;
in other words, he simply works out the subject he
writes upon as though he belonged to that system, and
no other. This is the case with every Indian who writes
treatises on different philosophies, and examples may
be multiplied; for one, Vãchaspati Misra,
was the author of a commentary on Yoga Sûtra
Bhãshya, on Nyãya Sûtra Bhãshya
of Pakshila Swami, and the Vãrtika of Udyõtakarãchãrya,
and of Bhãmati on S'rî
Sankarãchãrya's Vedãnta Sûtra
Bhãshya. He never adopted in his works
one uniform system of philosophy, and no one could
generally do so. This practice continues to the present
day, when we find the late Professor Tãrãnãtha
Tarkavãchaspati as the author of “Notes on the
Yoga Sûtra
Bhãshya of Vyãsa, and the commentary
thereon by Vãchaspati Misra”,
“Notes on Vãchaspati Misra's commentary on Sãnkhyakãrika”,
and of “Siddhãntabindusãra”, a work on
Vedãnta.
If we judge him from his work on Yoga, he will appear
as a follower of that system; if we [Page
28] judge
him only from his work on Sãnkhya, he will
appear a Sãnkhya, and from his
Siddhãntabindusãra will appear as a
Vedãntin. Hence from the fact that
two different systems of philosophy are taught, one
in the Mahãbhãshya,
and the other in the Yõga Sûtras, it
is not right to say that 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 of whom wrote the
Mahãbhãshya, and the other the Yoga
Sûtras; 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 believed, no one will hesitate
to declare that the authors of these two works are identical.
The Mahãbhãshya [Although the Mahãbhãshya
is a grammatical work, it should be noticed that it also
teaches a system of philosophy of grammar; and without the
study of such a system, Pãnini
could not be properly understood] cannot be read by
a Brahmin without Sãnthi, a ceremony performed under
the auspices of a proper teacher, just as in the case of
the study of Vedãnta Sûtra Bhãshya and
other sacred works. [A follower of the School of
S’rî Sankarãchãrya
will, be opening his Bhãshya, first chant a Vedic
Mantra, then a Sanskrit verse in praise of the great philosopher
(and such is the case with all the Sûtras and
Gitãbhãshyas), followed by reciting verses
in praise of the long line of teachers that succeeded him
and ending with one of his own teachers. There is a similar
custom among the Srivaishnavãs at the commencement
of the study of S’rî Rãmãnujãchãrya’s Brahma
Sûtrabhãshya
and other sacred works] This principle is [Page
29] followed
by every Brahmin throughout the length and breadth of Bhãratavarsha,
from Travancore to the northern extremity of Cashmere and
from Lahore to Dacca. During the performance of the Sãnthi
of the Mãhabbãshya, the following
verse should invariably be chanted by the student at the
first opening of the book for the day, and in the presence
of his teacher; and the study of the work is condemned
when this Santhi is not performed.
This
verse, viz., “Yogêna Chittasya padêna
vãchãm, malam sarirasya cha
vaidyakêna, Yopãkarõththam pravaram muninam,
Patanjalim prãnjalirãnathõsmi , “means
, “ I
bow with folded hands to Patanjali who purified the mind
of its impurities by (writing a work on) Yoga, the voice
of its impurities, by his grammar (Mahãbhãshya),
the physical body of its impurities by his work on Medicine,
and who was superior to all the sages (of his time) [Bhõjadêva
followed the example of Patanjali, by writing like him three
works on three subjects. On Yoga, we have his Rãjamãrtãnda,
a commentary on Patanjali’s Yoga Sûtras; on Grammar,
Sabdaprakãsika;
and on Medicine, Rãjamrigãnka]
Let
us try to fix the date of Patanjali. During his time
Sanskrit was the only language spoken in the Aryãvarta,
and this is evident from the fact that in the Mahãbhãshya
we find a conversation between a [Page
30] charioteer
and his master, a Brahmin, [II, iv, 56] examples
of different modes of pronunciation of some words by people
living in different parts [In I, i, 75,
the modes of pronunciation by the Easterns are given; for
those of the Northerns see VII, iii, 46; and several other
places besides] of the Aryãvarta, differences in
giving meanings to roots [Vide 1st Anhika
(p 62, Ballantyne’s Edition.)] by those that
live in countries beyond Indus, such as the Kãmbhõjas,
etc., and certain provincialisms which are strictly condemned
in the Mahãbhãshya.
During
the time of Sãkyamuni, on the other hand, the spoken
language was Pãli — the language used by him
in addressing his disciples. The tradition goes on to say
that he first began his address in Sanskrit, but on one of
his disciples reminding him of the fact that the previous
Buddhas used in their addresses only the Pãli language,
he too addressed them in the same tongue. [Dr. Mason’s
Kachchyano’s Pãli
Grammar, p 13] Religion
during the time of Patanjali was almost entirely Vedic.
Vedic doctrines were followed, and we had the Yãgnikas
and Brahmavãdins. In
the Mahãbhãshya, we find the Âryãvarta
described, [The country
bounded on the north by the Himãlayas, on the south
by the Vindhyas (Pãriyãtra), on the west by
the Aravalli Hills, and on the east by the Black Forest in
Behar, VI, iii, 109] the purity and wisdom of the
Aryans extolled, and [Page
31]
drunkenness
condemned; [2nd Ânhika, page 100,
Ballantyne’s
Edition, and in various other places.] sin included even
wrong-pronunciation of words, [1st Ânhika,
pp 12, 18 to 22 (Ballantyne’s Edition)
although he admits that certain words had no regular way
of pronunciation, but the general usage of the Aryans should
be followed ,Sishtãchãra [ 2nd Ânhika,
pp 122, 123 (Ballantyne’s Edition)] (usage or
custom among the elders) described, and strongly recommended
to be followed: purity and condition of the Brahmins delineated.
[ II, ii, 6 “These (Brahmins) are
devoid of ambition, of no motives, possess knowledge and
are not too rich”’;
also “One who is austere, of good education, of brown
colour, and reddish hair.” In VI, ii, we find him
describing a Brahmin of his times as one “who
lives in the Aryãvarta, who lives without keeping
anything for the next day, not covetous, and (practices)
very good morals without any motives, and is pure”.
He elsewhere says (IV, I and II, ii, 6) that all these
qualities go to make up a real Brahmin, and every one else
is a Brahmin only in name. The state of morality generally
was so good that he condemns every now and then the practice
of drinking (Surãpãna).]
If all these points be considered, it is quite clear that
the authority and customs of the Brahmins were in their
full sway.
When
Buddhism was preached by Sãkyamuni, the decline
of Brahminical authority was so great, Brahminical customs,
sacrifices, etc., so much neglected and even ridiculed,
and Vedic authority so much defied, that there were 1,350
Buddhist Bhikshus in [Page
32] India.
[Sukhãvativyûha in
the Mahãyãna Sûtra. This number is
only of learned Bhikshus. The work (Mahãyãna
Sûtra) says that there were
many more present (vide page I,
Tokio Edition)] These changes in religion, and especially
in a religion professed by those that are termed “the
greatest conservatives” — these
changes (which were of so destructive a character) would
at the lowest estimation require 300 years to intervene.
If Gautama, Buddha, and Buddha Bhikshus could be found
in India about 570 B.C., there is nothing extraordinary
in placing Patanjali three centuries earlier, that is,
870 B.C., in other words between the 9th and 10th centuries
B.C. ; although the changes of language would necessitate
our placing him even earlier.
Our
argument is greatly strengthened if we base our reasoning
on the chronology of the Chinese, who believe that the
Nirvãna of Sãkyamuni took
place in 949[Dr
E. J Eitel’s Sanskrit-Chinese Dictionary – a
handbook of Chinese Buddhism, p 139 (Hong-Kong 1888)] — or
973 [Beal’s Catena
of Chinese Scriptures, p 116 (note)] B.C., instead
of in 543 B.C., following the chronology of the southern
Buddhists, who follow the Mahãvansa
supposed to have been written about A.C. [Max Müller’s History
of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, page 267] 459.
If the Chinese chronology were again seriously considered
in the light of a vast literature of the Chinese, now accessible
to the Western Orientalists, [Page
33] the decisions of
the various Orientalists, carefully reviewed, the dates
of the Western Orientalists, which are considered to
be final on the subject of the Nirvãna
of Sãkyamuni, may fall to the ground. The discussion
of the date of Nirvãna
cannot find a place in a brief article to a monthly magazine,
on the “Age of
Patanjali” ; and a full treatment of the subject of
the present paper with its allied questions, cannot receive
any justice except in a volume.
To
state our conclusions once more for the sake of clearness
(a), Patanjali was the author of the Mahãbhãshya,
a commentary on Pãnini's
Ashtãdhyãyi, and also of the Yoga Sûtras,
and (b) that he lived without any doubt between the 9th
and 10th centuries B.C., [The arguments of Mr T Subba
Row Garu relating to the age of Patanjali, which made Patanjali
identical with Govindaswamy, the Guru of S’rî Sankarãchãya,
are quite baseless, being in contradiction with the internal
evidence delivered from original works, such as the Mahãbhãshya,
S’rî Sankãrachãrya’s
Vedanta Sûtrabhashya,
etc (vide The Theosophist, Vol IV, page 309–312] that
is, about the 10th century B.C.
General Remarks. — The
mode of treatment of Oriental questions by the Western
Orientalists is so unique, and so prejudiced, [We
can give brilliant illustrations. Just imagine Dr Otto
Böhtlingk, “while incapable of
understanding even the easy rules of Pãnini, and much
less those of Kãtyãyana, and still making use
of them in the understanding of classical texts. The errors
in his department 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, when he calculates the mischievous influence which
they must exercise on the study of Sanskrit Philology”. (Pãnini and
his place in Sanskrit Literature,
by Tho. Goldstücker, page 254) Dr.
Roth writing his Worterbuch (Sanskrit
Dictionary), which is described by Goldstücker (Pãnini,
p. 251) in this way: “I
will merely here state that I know of no work which has
come before the public with such unmeasured pretension
of scholarship and critical ingenuity as this Worterbuch,
and which has, at the same time, laid itself open to
such serious reproaches of the profoundest grammatical
ignorance” — explains Vedic words, and “has
courage to pass sweeping condemnation on all those gigantic
labours of the Hindu mind (e.g.,
Sãyanãcharya's Bhãshva) while ignorant
of all but the merest fraction of them”. Professor
Kuhn, who is said to be “no proficient in Sanskrit”, was
asked to give his own opinion of the Worterbuch,
and of course praised the work very highly. Prof. Weber rushes
into the stage at once, and warmly defends it against every
one. A detailed criticism on the vain labours of these “Saturnalia
of Sanskrit Philology” will be found in
Groldstücker's Pãnini, His Place in Sanskrit
Literature, pp. 241-268. Prof.
Weber himself acknowledges, although not in the plainest
language, that he had, while lecturing on Indian Literature,
made only a superficial study of the Mahãbhãshya
(History of Indian Literature, p. 224, note)] that
we cannot refrain from quoting the following: [Page
34]
“The
writings of many of these Orientalists are often characterized
by an imperfect knowledge of Indian literature, philosophy
and religion and of Hindu traditions, and a contemptuous
disregard for [Page
35] the
opinions of Hindu writers and Pandits. 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 date as if it were absolutely
correct”.
3).
It is often assumed without reason that every passage
in the Vedas containing philosophical or metaphysical
ideas must be looked upon as a subsequent interpolation,
and that every book treating of a philosophical subject
must be considered as having 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 seven centuries preceding the Christian era,
and mankind slowly emerged for the first time from '
the depths of animal brutality ' within the last four
or five thousand years.
4)
It is also assumed that Buddhism was brought into existence
by Gautama Buddha. The previous 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. In consequence of this erroneous
impression every Hindu book referring to the doctrines
of the Buddhists is [Page
36]
declared to
have been written subsequent to the time of Gautama Buddha.
For instance, Mr. Weber is of opinion that Vyasa, the author
of Brahma Sûtras, wrote them in the fifth century
after Christ. This is indeed a startling revelation to
the majority of Hindus.
5)
Whenever several works treating of various subjects are
attributed to 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 considered as the productions of
different writers. By this process of reasoning they have
discovered two Bãdarãyanas
(Vyãsas)......We
do not mean to say that in every case identity of name
is equivalent to identity of personality. But we cannot
but protest against such assumptions when they are made
without any evidence to support them, merely for the
purpose of supporting a foregone conclusion or establishing
a favourite hypothesis.
“We
have enumerated these defects in the writings of European
Orientalists for the purpose of showing to our readers that
it is not always safe to rely upon the conclusions arrived
at by these writers regarding the dates of ancient Indian
History”[The Theosophist, Vol IV, p
304, et
seq.] Professor
Bhandarkar, who was present in Vienna on the occasion of
one of the International Congresses [Page
37]
of Orientalists,
and who had therefore an opportunity of becoming personally
acquainted with many Western Orientalists, says in his
lecture delivered in Bombay in 1878 [Vide the
Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society
for 1887] after his return from Europe, that the
so-called Sanskrit
Professors of the West, possess only so much knowledge
of Sanskrit as to enable them to translate into their
own languages works written in Purãnic, but not
in a more difficult style (e.g., that of Sãbara's
Bhãshya
on the Mimamsa Sûtras, S'rî Sankarãchãrya's
Bhãshya on the
Brahma Sûtras, Tatwachintãmani of Gangêsõpãdhyãya,
or the works of Udayanãchãrya). Our own
impression is that most of them (Western Orientalists)
are acquainted only with the names of philosophical and
other works, and if at all they have studied those works,
it is only very
superficially and hence it is quite natural that
they should commit errors and fallacies in their writings.
On the 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 whom transmits
the doctrines and truths to his successor who is below
him in the list. But unfortunately they do not possess
any knowledge of any of the western languages, such as
English, French and German, in which treatises and other
publications relating to Sanskrit Literature and History
are written. But if once the ideas and mode of thinking
of the Orientalists [Page
38] are
made known to them, they will produce wonderful results.
It is a matter of deep regret that our Indian graduates
do not generally possess an enterprising spirit, and
are indifferent to furthering the progress of the study
of Sanskrit, especially works like the Mahãbhãshya.
They generally depend, owing to their ignorance of Sanskrit,
for their information, on western translations, or western
compilations from Sanskrit works. These unfortunate circumstances
attendant on the Indian people can only be remedied by
our University students continuing, with the aid of good
Pandits, their Sanskrit studies — more especially
of the Vedas, Srauta Sûtras, etc. — even after
obtaining their degrees. Our Western Orientalists would
do well, before becoming Professors of Sanskrit in the
western Universities, to come to India, and systematically
study [ Professor Max Müller feels this necessity
more in the study of Purvamimãmsa than that of
any other system of philosophy or subject, as may be
seen by his letter to the late Mr. M. M. Kunte, dated
21st June 1877 :... “But to the scholar the Pûrvamimãmsa
is of great interest, and I have always thought that
we wanted a native Indian scholar to translate and 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
conception”. Professor
Bhandarkar, too advocated this step in his lecture in
Bombay in 1887] 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.[Page
39] One
word more. Our European Orientalists will confer a great
boon on Indian Pandits if they (Orientalists of Europe) would
take the trouble of expressing in the Sanskrit language
their views regarding Indian antiquity and literature
in order that the Pandits may become more easily acquainted
with their views; for it is a more difficult thing for
Pandits to learn three European languages, viz.,
English, German and French, for knowing what the European
Orientalists think about them and the Indian literature,
than for the Orientalists themselves — who are
mostly Professors of Sanskrit, teaching that language
to many University students — to write in Sanskrit. Go
to Top of this page
From
valuable and undisputed evidence furnished by Indian
literature, we arrive at the conclusion that he also
wrote the Yoga Sûtras
and that he lived about the 10th century B.C.;
the dates given by the Western Orientalists, [Bohtlingk
(quoted by Weber) 250 B.C.; Max Müller
about 200 B.C.— vide his History of Ancient
Sanskrit Literature, page 244;
Weber 140 B.C. to A.C. 60 (Indian Literature, p 224);
Goldstücker 140
B.C—120 B.C (Panini, p 234)] on the other
hand, vary from 250 B.C. to A.C. 60; at any rate they have
decided that from the internal evidence furnished by the
Mahãbhãshya
itself, Patanjali flourished after Buddha’s
(Sãkyamuni’s) Nirvãna, which is fixed
by them at 543 B.C.[Page
4]
The
reasons assigned by them for such a conclusion are as below
when expressed in the plainest language:
If they had been Buddhists, they would not have been worshipers
of idols, and much less those of Siva, Skanda and Visãkha.
We
also come to the conclusion, that in the same way the
several Sanskrit authors meant to describe — by the
use of the term Yavana — the various
foreigners they had known. It might have been applied to
the Persians when they invaded India; after them to the
Greeks, then to the Bactrians; and at last — also to
the Pathans and the Moguls] [Page
13]
Regarding
the Mãdhyamikãs, it is absurd to suppose that
the Yavanas invaded and captured the individuals belonging
to an idealistic philosophical sect called by that name — especially
when we consider [Page
14]
Back to our On Line Documents
Back to our Main Page
Используются технологии uCoz