60

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

[FEBRUARY, 1873.

more important than the other passage and the the Buddhists before he himself became a convert, name Yavana. Why may we not rather take our is a mere supposition, not supported by any reliable stand on this latter name, and the mention of authority. Kanishka is also not mentioned anywhere as having carried his conquests up to Sãketa, while, the conquests of the king so designated up to as before observed, the Yavanas are mentioned by Säketa, and interpret the word Mādhyamika by Hindu writers, and the Bactrian kings by Greek the light thus thrown upon it 2 And the passage I have brought forward is, I think, so decisive, and authors, as having done so. The truth is that the name “Mādhyamika" has agrees so well with this statement, that some other explanation must be sought-for of the name been misunderstood both by Dr. Goldstücker and Mādhyamika ; but of this more hereafter. In the Professor Weber; and hence, in giving Dr. Gold next place, we have to suppose that the most im stücker's argument in my article, I omitted the portant period of Nāgārjuna's life was passed in the portion based on that name. The expression aru reign of Kanishka, that he lived so long in that nad Yavano Mādhyamikſin makes no sense, if we reign as to have founded a school, and that in that understand by the last word, the Buddhist school reign the sect assumed the name of Mādhyamika, of that name. The root rudh means “to besiege" and grew into such importance that its fame spread or “blockade ;” and the besieging or blockading of so far and wide, that even Patanjali in the far east a sect is something I cannot understand, Places are knew of it. From the words of the Rijatarangini, besieged or blockaded, but not sects. I am aware however, it would appear that Nāgārjuna and his that Professor Weber translates this verb by a word disciples or school rose into importance in the which in English means “to oppress ;” but I am reign of Abhimanyu, the successor of Kanishka ; not aware that the root is ever used in that sense. for the words are—“About that time (i. e., in the By the word “Mādhyamika” is to be understood reign of Abhimanyu) the Bauddhas, protected by the people of a certain place, as Dr. Kern has point the wise Nāgārjuna, the Bodhisattva, became pre ed out in his preface to his edition of the Brihat dominant.” And in the same reign, we are told in Sanhitā, on the authority of the Sanhitā itself. We the history of Kashmir, the Bhāshya of Patanjali are thus saved the necessity of making a string was introduced by Chandrāchārya and others of very improbable suppositions; and in this way into that country. In the Vākyapadiya also it is Professor Weber's argument, based as it is on the stated that in, the course of time it came to pass that hypothesis that the Mādhyamikas alluded to by Patanjali's work was possessed only by the inhabi Patanjali were the Buddhist sect of that name, falls tants of the Dakhan, and that too only in books, i. e. to the ground. The first of Dr. Goldstücker's pass it was not studied. Afterwards Chandrāchārya ages (the word “Yavana” occurring in both of brought it into vogue. Now even supposing for a them), and the passage I have for the first time time that the Bhashya was written in the reign of pointed out, taken together, determine the date of Kanishka, i.e., about 25 A.D., fifteen or twenty Patanjali to be about 144 B. C. And this agrees years are too small a period for it to have come to better with the other passages pointed out by Dr. be regarded as a work of authority, to have ceased Goldstücker. For if Patanjali lived in the reign of to be studied, to have existed only in books in the the founder of the Sunga dynasty, one can under South, and to have obtained such a wide reputation stand why the Mauryas and their founder should have as to be introduced into Kashmir, a place far distant been uppermost in his thoughts; but if he lived from Patanjali's native country and from the in 25 A.D., when the Andhra Bhritya dynasty was Dakhan. Even Professor Weber is staggered by in power, one may well ask why he should have the shortness of the interval; but instead of being gone back for illustrating his rules to the Mauryas thus led to call in question his theory or the sound and Chandragupta, and passed over the interme ness of his argument, he is inclined to doubt the diate dynasties of the Sungas and the Kānvas. As to my paper on the Age of the Mahābharata, authenticity of the texts brought forward by Dr. Goldstücker. Besides, he gives no evidence to show I have to observe that it was written with a certain that the name Yavana was applied to the Indo purpose. Colonel Ellis, going upon the authority Scythic kings. I am aware that at different periods of the Gowja Agrahāra grant, translated by Cole of Indian history it was applied to different races ; brook in 1806, and again by Mr. Narasimmiyengar but this vague knowledge ought not to be sufficient in Part XII. of the Indian Antiquary, had referred to lead us to believe as a matter of fact that it was the composition of the Mahabharata to a period applied to these kings. And the generic name by subsequent to 1521 A.D., and had asked the Asiatic which they were known to the author of the Society of Bombay to make inquiries as to whether Rājatarangini was Turushka. This name is not the ashes of the Sarpa Sattra instituted by Jana mejaya could be found by digging for them at unknown to Sanskrit literature, for it occurs even in such a recent work as the Viswagunadars'a. I Anagundi, with which the Colonel identified Hásti cannot, therefore, believe that Patanjali could not napur; and whether the remains of the palace, have known it, if he really lived so late as in the in which Bharata, the son of Dushyanta and time of those kings. And that Kanishka persecuted Sakuntalá, was crowned, were observable at the