FEBRUARY, 1873.]

CORRESPONDENCE, &c.

the same time that it does not signify there a work of that name, but very probably a person, just like the Mahājābāla and the Mahāhailihila mentioned in the same stitra along with it. According to the scho lion it is to be taken as a masculine.

“In con

59

the reign of Pushpamitra.

And the conclusion

based on this and on one of the two instances

pointed out by Dr. Goldstücker, viz., Arunad Yava nah Sáketam, agree so thoroughly with each other, that they can leave but little doubt on the

nexion with āhava, yuddha, or taken as a substan tive, with a word for war supplied” it means :

mind of the reader as to the true date of Patanjali. But I must consider Professor Weber's argument

“great war of the Bhārata”—M. Bh. V. 4811; "yud dha, XIV. 1809 (Petersburg Dictionary). After

for bringing Patanjali down to about 25 after

all, the first direct testimony of the existence of an epic work treating of the same subject as our Mahá bharata remains still as yet that passage from Dio Chrysostomos about the “Indian Homer.”

Your paper on Nārāyana Swāmi is also very inter esting and instructive.

With best wishes for the continuance of your. highly welcome and valuable undertaking, I am, &c., A. WEBER.

Berlin, 28th Nov. 1872. NOTE ON THE ABOVE BY PROF. RAMKR1SHNA. G. BHANDARKAR.

THROUGH the courtesy of the Editor of the Indian Antiquary, I have been permitted to see Professor Weber's letter, which contains notices of my article on the Date of Patanjali, and of my paper on the Age of the Mahābhārata. This is not the first time the Professor has been so kind to me. One of my humble productions he has deemed worthy of a place in his Indische Studien. While, therefore, I am thankful to him for these favours,

I feel

Christ. The two instances brought forward by Dr. Goldstücker contain the name Yacana ; and a king of that generic name is spoken of as having besieged Sáketa, commonly under stood to be Ayodhyā. This name was applied most unquestionably, though not exchusively, to the Greek kings of Bactria. The Yavanas are spoken of, in a Sanskrit astronomical work noticed by Dr. Kern, as having pushed their conquests up to Sãketa; and Bactrian kings are also mentioned by some classical writers as having done the same. dependently, this passage leads us to arrived at by Dr. Goldstücker, that date of Patanjali at about 150 B. C.

Looked at in the conclusion is, it fixes the But the other

instance contains, in addition, the name Mādhya mika.

The Buddhist school of that name is said to

have been founded by Nāgārjuna, who, according to the Réjatarangini, flourished in the reigns of Kanishka and Abhimanyu, that is, a few years after Christ. This instance then brings the author of the Mahābhāshya to some period after Christ. Here

then is a case resembling those which are frequently discussed by our Pandits, in which a Sruti and a

bound to consider his remarks on my articles, and to reply to them. Professor Weber thinks it a pity that I should not have been acquainted with his critique on Dr. Goldstücker's “Pānini.” I hardly share in his regret, because the facts which I have brought forward are new, and my conclusions are not affected by anything he has said in the review. He certainly brought to notice, in that critique (as I now learn), the occurrence in Patanjali of the expression “Pushpamitra Sabhā.” But Professor Weber will see that my argument is not at all based on that passage. I simply quoted it to show that even Patanjali tells us that the Pushpamitra he speaks of in another place was a king, and not an ordinary individual or an imaginary person. My reasoning in the article in question

is based on

the words ina

Push

pamitram Yajayamah. This is given by Patanjali as an instance of the Värttika, which teaches that the present tense (lat) should be used to denote an action which has begun but not ended. Now this passage was noticed neither by Professor Weber nor by Dr. Goldstücker; and hence the trouble I gave to the Editor of the Antiquary. The passage enables us, I think, to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to the date of Patanjali, since it shows that the author of the Mahābhāshya flourished in

Smriti (or a Sruti and an inference) conflict with each other.

The Brahmanical rule is that the

Sruti must be understood in its natural sense, and the Smriti so interpreted as to agree with it, that is, any sort of violence may be done to the Smrit: to bring it into conformity with the Sruti, and the

inference must be somehow explained away. Now, in the present case, Professor Weber's Sruti is the

instance containing the name of the Mādhyamikas. But the word Yavana, occurring in it and in the

other instance, cannot be taken to apply to the Greek kings of Bactria, for the dynasty had become extinct a pretty long time before Christ. Professor Weber therefore thinks that by it is to be under

stood the Indo-Scythic king Kanishka, who reigned before Abhimanyu. But Kanishka cannot be re garded as having oppressed or persecuted the Mādhyamikas, for he was himself a Buddhist. This objection is obviated by the Professor by the suppo sition that he must have persecuted them before he became one of them.

I must confess this argument appears to me to be very weak. It has many inherent improbabi lities. In the first place, I do not see why the passage containing the name Mādhyamika and the name itself should be regarded as so much

• By the way, I prefer the form “Pushpamitra” to “Pushyamitra,” as the latter appears to me to be a mis

lection for the former, which might easily occur, Q, p, being often by careless scribes written as q, y,