Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 2.djvu/74

64 THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY. [February, 1673. that such a “MS.” received, according to the V&kyapadiya, from Parvata, came “ into possession of Abhimanyu” by the hands of Chandra and the others. In my opinion we have to abide simply by Lassen’s conjecture : tad-£game (Loc.), “ after they had received from him the command to come to him and indeed this appears to me quite indubitable when we take also iuto consideration the second passage of the R&jataraiigini, IV. 487, already quoted by Bdhtlingk, in which it is said of Jay&pida (reigned, according to Lassen, 754-85)— des'&ntar&d kgamayya vy&chaksh&n&n kshamft- patih | pr&vartayata vichhinnam mah&bh&shyam svaman- dale |I “ From another land bade come explainers thereof the earth-prince, And brought the split Bh&shya in the kingdom new into vogue.” And the combination, occurring here, of prfivar- tayata with svamandale, definitely decides that in the first passage also (I. 176) pr&vartitara is to be understood as meaning, not the “ constituting of a text,” but the “ introduction” of the work into Kashmir; and, consequently, the whole of Gold- stucker’s polemic against the hitherto received con¬ ception of this verse is shown to be perfectly idle and groundless. And, moreover, Bhartrihari’s representation by no means leaves the impression that all that is recorded therein could have taken place within the short period of about 30 years; and yet, according to what has been said above on Nos. 1 and 2, regarding the passages “arunad Yavanah S&ketam” and “ arunad Yavano M&dhyamik&n,” it is not easy to account for a longer interval between the composition of these passages and the introduction of the Mah&- bh&shya into Kashmir; we obtain this interval, to wit, when, in the absence of every other fixed point, we strike the mean between the dates already found, 5-45 and 45-65 A.D., and consequently fix the composition of the Mah&bhishya at 25 A.D., and Abhitnanyu’s care for the same at 55 A.D. The question therefore naturally arises, whether possibly those two examples may not have come into the text only through “ Chandra and the others,”—originally therefore do not come from Patanjali at all ? That the restoration of a text lost for a time—and this, according to the V&kyapadiya, was really the question at issue—-in the fashion which Indian scholars are accustomed to employ, would not take place without interpolations on their part, is, to say the least, extremely likely ; and there¬ fore we cannot well call in question the possibility that even the two passages referred to above may belong to such interpolations. But in that case the entire ground on which we stand with reference to this question becomes so unstable and uncertain, that we gladly hold by the assurance that these passages may just as likely be genuine. The very peculiar manner in which, in the Mah&bh&shya throughout, Patanjali is spoken of in the third person, is certainly remarkable, and might easily lead to the supposition that the work, as we possess it, is rather a work of his dis¬ ciples than of Patanjali himself (compare what is said in the Acad. Vorles., p. 216, regarding two other cases of the kind). This is not, however, abso¬ lutely necessary: the example of Caesar shows that such a practice may be employed even when the author is speaking of himself ; and therefore it would certainly require very special evidence to prove such a conclusion. If, in reference to this, it could be established that in the MahAbhft- shya—I can speak naturally only of the compa¬ ratively small portion to which we have access in Ballantyne's edition—cases are found in which a series of proof-passages are cited only with their initial words, while the text of the passages follows after¬ wards in extenso, together with a detailed explanation, yet on the other hand such self-commentaries are by no means uncommon in Indian literature; and, in con¬ sideration of the remarkable amount of detail with which even the Mah&bh4shya otherwise treats its subject, not in the least degree surprising : the brief exhibition of the proof-passages finds, too, its quite corresponding analogue in the peculiar use of the work for closing a discussion by versus memoriales which gather up in brief what has been already said. It would be presumptuous to pronounce at present on the complete authenticity of the existing text of the Mah&bh&shya, when we have access to only so small a portion. And in the preceding discussion I have only sought to show that, in so far as we are at present acquainted with its con¬ tents,* there exist no directly urgent grounds for doubting its authenticity. In the meantime, the two passages adduced by Goidstucker : “ arunad Yavanah S&ketam” and “ arunad Yavano M&dh- yamik&n,” may be regarded as furnishing sufficient evidence for determining the date of Patanjali; and on that evidence it would appear—on the assump¬ tion that Lassen’s chronology is correct—that the date must be fixed not, according to the opinion of Goldstiicker, at 140-120 B. C.,but probably at about 25 after Christ,