62

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

jali gives in commenting on a v art tika on III. 2, 11. The rule refers to the use of the imperfect an a dy at an e, “when something is no longer present;” the v art tika adds that it is used “paro'kshe cha lokavijnāte prayoktur dars anavishaye also with regard to something which is not (any longer) visible, but is perfectly well known, and which has been seen by the speaker himself, or might have been seen (literally, “falls within the sphere of his vision”); and as examples of such a case, Patanjali quotes two sentences:—arunad Yav an a h Säketam, “the Yavana oppressed Sáketa,” and : arunad Y a v a no Mādhyamikán, “the Yavana oppressed the Mādhyamika.” Both of these cir cumstances, therefore, when Patanjali gave these examples, must have belonged to the then immediate past, and have been still fresh in the memory of the people; as appears certain also from the tenor

of the contrary examples which he quotes. Now, according to Goldstücker's assumption, the Yavana

who besieged Sáketa, i.e., in his opinion, Ayodhyā, must be identical with Menandros (reigned, accord

[FEBRUARY, 1873.

place much earlier, yet we must not date back this circumstance at the highest more than about 40 years before Abhimanyu began to reign ; for it would be hardly credible that at a still earlier period of life Nāgārjuna could have gained so prominent a posi tion as to have been able to become the founder of a

school. Between the years 5-45 A.D., according to Lassen's reckoning of Abhimanyu's coming to the throne, the following events must therefore fall :—1. The besieging of Sãketa by a Yavana ; 2. The oppressing of the Mādhyamika by the same or another Yavana; 3. The composition of the Mahābhāshya; and between the years 45-65, lastly, 4. Abhimanyu's care for this work:—all this indeed only on the double assumption that the reading “mādhyamikān” is correct, and that the name of the school, according to the Indian tradition, did not exist until after its being founded by Nāgārjuna. And now, as regards what I have

marked as No. 1, the oppressing of Sãketa by a Yavana, such an occurrence, if we are to under stand thereby the besieging of Oude by a Greek

king, is certainly not even conceivable as having

ing to Lassen, 144-120 B.C.), of whom Strabo ex pressly records that he extended his conquests as

happened at this period, seeing that the last inde pendent Greek king of the Indian Mark ceased to

far as to the Yamunā, while of no other Greek king

reign, according to Lassen II. 337, about the year 85 B.C. The name “Yavana,” however, passed

of this period are so extensive military expeditions known. Patanjali must therefore have lived between 140 and 120 B.C. It is not possible, however, to bring into any kind of harmony with this view the

second fact which Patanjali records of the Yavana, viz., his oppressing of the Mādhy a mika. For the founding of the Buddhist school of this name

is continually ascribed to Nāgārjun a (see Burnouf, Introduction, p. 559; Lassen II. 1163;

Köppen II. 14, 20; Wassiljew, p. 314). Now, we find, no doubt, conflicting statements with regard to the date of this renowned teacher; but, so far as the present inquiry is concerned, we need not con cern ourselves either with the determining of this

point, or with the intricate question regarding the actual date of Buddha's death; but we have simply to abide by the notice, overlooked by Goldstücker, in the Rājatarañgini (I. 173, 177; see also Lassen II. 413), according to which Nāgārjuna is held to have lived under the same Abhimanyu, to whom,

in the same passage (I.176), is ascribed so peculiar care for the Mahābhāshya. For if we accept the

over from the Greeks to their successors, the Indo Scythians ; and since in No. 2 we see this name

used in describing an occurrence which, according to what is stated above, cannot have taken place till about 100 to 85 years before Christ,-seeing further that the occurrence in No. 1 must be essen

tially synchronous with that recorded in No. 2–

it follows that it can have been only an Indo-Scy thic prince who had besieged Säketa shortly before Patanjali gave this example.

Assuming now that

by Säketa we are really to understand Ayodhyā, as is certainly probable, then Kanishka (reigned 10-40 A.D., according to Lassen) is undoubtedly the only one of these princes—as indeed of all foreign princes before the Moslims—of whom so extensive a

military expedition is (not merely conceivable, but even) not improbable; compare what Lassen, II. 854, records regarding the extension of his power toward the east. It is true that what Patanjali in No. 2 records of the oppressing

latter statement as correct, we cannot well refuse to

of the Mādhyamika by the Yavana, does not seem to be applicable to Kanishka, inasmuch

receive the former, also recorded in the same verses immediately before and after. Both stand and fall

as he is specially known as one of the prin

together. Relying on this passage, then, we are For

however, we have also the still later inform ation (in Hiuen Thsang I. 107, see Lassen II.

even if, as seems undoubted, it must be assumed that, in Abhimanyu's time, Nāgārjuna was already

reign, was hostilely disposed toward Buddhism—

now in fact restricted to very narrow limits.

advanced in years (which seems to be testified by the high reverence and the wide-reaching influence

which, according to the words of the Rājatarañgini, he enjoyed under that king); if, therefore, his founding of the Mādhyamika-school may have taken

cipal promoters of Buddhism. On the one hand, 857) that Kanishka, during the earlier years of his

and it is just from this earlier period of the reign, as we shall see below, that Patanjali's statement seems to date; on the other hand, is it possible that the statement refers only to special oppression of

the Mādhyamika in the interest of the Hinayana º