THE DATE OF PATANJALI.
Oct. 4, 1872.]
299
“is unquestionably more ancient than the Har
and that he was unable to vanquish Sri Harsha.f
sha of Kashmir."
He is called Kavindra. There is one stanza in this work of Mā
Now
the
author of the
Naishadhiya is the same with the author of the Khandana,t and the Harsha of Kashmir reigned from 1113 to 1125.f. The Kusumānjali, at the
dhavāchārya’s which seems to make some al lusion to Vāchaspati Miśra. We cannot, how
latest then, cannot be later than the eleventh cen
ever,
tury, and may go back into the tenth or even an earlier period. And this conclusion we arrive at,
leave the reader to judge for himself. San kara tells Sureşvarāchārya that the latter will become “Váchaspati” in his next birth in
be it remembered, independently of the circum
stance about Wächaspati's having answered Sri Harsha, the authority for which is at present unknown to us.
be
sure
will
therefore
the world, and that he will write an excellent commentary on his Bhāshya, which will live to the end of time.
If we take Văchaspati Miśra as coming after
of this, and
The words of Mādhava are—
two writers—Udayana, at the latest, might
“Vác h a s p at it w a madnigamya vasundha rāyām Bhavyām vidhásyasitamām mamabhāshya tikäm.”f The word Wäch a spatitvam may, and probably does mean only “the quality of being a master of style or language.” But the
come in the eleventh century.
“tiká” alluded to is probably the Bhāmati of
Śri Harsha, the results seem to point towards the same date. Vāchaspati is quoted in the Sarvadarś nasangraha of Mādhavāchārya, as an
authority on the Sánkhya philosophy, Ś and allowing a sufficient interval between those Furthermore, we
find a writer of even earlier date than Mādhava
Văchaspati Miśra, and there may possibly be
quoting both Vāchaspati Miśra and Udayan àchārya. We allude to Bhatta Rāghava who
an oblique reference to the name of its author in the word “Wächaspatitvam.” But we do not feel sure of this and the commentary affords
wrote his work entitled Nyāyasūravichâra in
A. D. 1252.|
We thus confirm from these dif
ferent sources the conclusion that at the latest,
Udayanāchārya flourished about the eleventh century, and that, for aught that appears to the contrary, he may have flourished even at an earlier period.
One more fact may perhaps be added. Ac cording to Mādhavāchārya's Sankaravijaya,
no help. It may be added, that there does not seem to be any historical objection to this ac count of Mādhava. Sri Harsha in the Khandana alludes to Sankara,S but that would not by itself negative the possibility of their having been con temporaries. Of course, this must not be under stood as equivalent to an admission that Mā
dhav's account is wholly trustworthy.
Bāna
Sri Harsha, Băna, Mayūra, Udayana, and San
and Mayúra, and Dandin who is mentioned with
karāchārya were contemporaries, and all the first four philosophers were vanquished in con
them, are now hardly known as philosophers. But if that account is accepted as meaning that,
troversy by the last. Sri Harsha, it may be
according to Mādhava, Vāchaspati Miśra flourish
added, is here particularized as the author of the Khandana" ; Bāna and Mayura are repre sented as having flourished in the districts of
ed in the next generation, or the next generation but one, after
Sankarāchārya, it may corroborate
Avanti”; about Udayana, there is nothing less
the other statement made by Mādhava, about Udayana's having been confuted in controversy
vague than that he was an opponent of a dualism,
by Sankara.
ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI AND THE KING IN WEIOSE REIGN HE LIVED. By RAMKRISHNA GOPAL BHANDARKAR, M.A., ELPHINSTONE COLLEGE, BOMBAY.
IN Patanjali's Mahābhāshya or great com mentary on Pånini, a rule (värtika) laid down by Kātyāyana, is given, teaching that the Imper fect should be used to signify an action not
- Wasavadatta, Pref. p 18 and 17.
t So stated by the author himself in the Naishadhiya. See Dr. Hall's Vá avadattà, 18, and in the Khandana, p. 28.
- Prof. Wilson quoted in Dr. Hall's Vasavadatta, 15.
Ś See the new Calcutta edition by Taranath, p. 168.
witnessed by the speaker but capable of being witnessed by him and known to people in gene ral. Of this rule Patanjali gives two instances; “The Yavana besieged [arunat] Saketa” and | Dr. Hall's catalogue, p. 26, referred to above.
- Madhav, xv. 157.
- Ibid 141.
+ XV. 72, 157.
§ See the Khandana, Calc, ed., p. 2.
XIII. 73.
.
