THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY. [March, 1873. 90 But Patanjali’s own explanation is param akshmh paroksham (that which is turned away from the eyes, i. e., not seen), and one of his quotations from other writers about the sense of the word is kudya-katan- taritam paroksham° (that which is hidden from one even by a fence), both of which show that the only essential sense of the word is ‘a thing not seen by the speaker.’ Dars'ana-vishaya, the Professor interprets by ‘athing once seen, or that once fell within the range of the speaker’s vision but if it has been once seen, it cau never be called paroksha in the sense which is always attributed to the word. Fourthly.—Prof. Weber quotes from Patanjali the passage mathurdyah Pdtafiputram piirvam, and infers that the author of the Mahfibhashya lived to the east of Pataliputra. His interpretation of the passage seems to be ‘ Pataliputra is first and Mathura afterwards.' But the natural sense is— ‘ Pataliputra is to the east of Mathuril,* as it is, or rather was, as a matter of fact. That Patanjali lived, not to the east of Pataliputra, but to the north¬ west of Saketa, I have shown in a separate article. Lastly, Dr. Goidstucker and Prof. Weber understand the word acharyades iya used by Kaiyata in some places in the sense of ‘countryman of the acharya.' It is not unnatural that an antiquarian, looking for historical facts in what he reads, should interpret his author thus ; but it is not natural that a Hindu commentator, caring only for his subject, and not at all for history, should use such an expression to contrast one of the authors he comments on with another. Ho will look to the scale of estimation in which he holds them. To tho Hindu grammarian the greatest achdrya is Panini, next to him is Katyayana, and next to this latter is Patanjali. If it is necessary in one place to contrast one of them with another, ho would naturally use some such expression as Acharya and dchurya the younger. And this appears to me to be tho sense of the word, and a Hindu would naturally understand it thus. It is derived, according to PAn. V. 3, 67 ; but the sense ought not to be taken as ‘ an unaccomplished teacher,’ as Dr. Goidstucker does, but a teacher who is lower in the scale, or the younger teacher. And that Patanjali was so is plain. That there is very great reason te believe that Patanjali and Katya- aua did not belong to the same country, I have shown elsewhere. Ramkrishna G. Bhandarkar. NOTES. 1. I heartily accept theEditor’s correction about the true identity of Sujmra (see Vol. I. p. 321). I was not aware of the survival of the name near Wasfii, and I followed Ibn Ilaukal’s data, which present the itinerary as follows :— Cambay to Sftbarah, 4 marches (J parasang from the sea.) SCtb&rah to Sindan, 5 „ (do. do Sindan to Saimftr, 5 „ (See Elliot's Historians, by Dowson, Vol. I. p. 3, and note—also the map at page 32; and at page 30 the same itinerary in al-Istakhri; also in Idrisi at page 85). The last-mentioned geographer says :— “ They fish for pearls here. It is in the vicinity of Bara, a small island on which some cocoanut trees and the costus grow.” Can any explanation be given of this V The passage looks as if it might contain some light on the Periniula of Pliny, which was according to his indications—(1) the chief mart of India, (2) the seat of a pearl-fishery, (3) somewhere on the west coast, and (4) certainly anything rather than Manar, as Lassen makes it. 2. The following short extracts from Valcntyne’s Hist* rv of the Dutch East Indies may be of interest to mil! v* of your readers, as an item in the history of the “ Discovery of Sanskrit.” That very indus¬ trious and intelligent author, after referring to what had been written by the chapluins, Abraham Rogerius and Philip Baldaeus, concerning the Hindu religion, proceeds:—“ We do indeed find many things in those two books concerning the religion (of the heathen) ; but yet by no means all that it would be well to know. And the sole cause of this is that neither of those gentlemen understood the Sanskrit language (which Rogerius calls Samscortanis, aud which others call Giraiulum or Kcrendum), in which language the Vedam, or Holy Lawbook of these heathens, is written. And thus they had no power to read or translate the Vedam, and thereby to lay open before the eyes of the world this religion in its real essence and on its truo foundation Above all, it would be a matter of general utility to the coast that some more chaplains should be maintained there for the sole purpose of studying the Sanskrit tongue,f the hcad-and-mother-tonguc of most Eastern languages, and once for all to make an exact translation of the Vedam, or Lawbook of the Heathen (which is followed not only by the heathen on this coast, but also, in whole or in part, in Ceylon, Malabar, Bengal, Surat, and other neighbouring kingdoms), and thereby to give such preachers further facilities for the more powerful conviction of the heathen here and elsewhere, on their own ground, and for tho disclosure of many mysteries and other matters with which we are now unacquainted This Lawbook of the Heathen, called the Vedam, had in the very old times 4 parts, though one of these is now lost. . . . These four parts were named Roggo Vedam, Sadura or Issoure Vedam, Sarna Vedam, and Tarawana or Adderawana Vedam.”—Keurlyke Be sch eyeing can Choromandel, pp. 72, 73 in Vol. V. Palermo, Dec. 26, 1872. IT. Yule, Colonel.
- See the Makubkashya under Parokshe lit. III. 2, 115. f “ Be Sanskritse caal."
