20S

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

is a passage in the Mahābhāshya : ‘Mathurāyāh Pātaliputram pårvam,’ which gives us just the opposite direction, as it implies that Pātaliputra was situated between the speaker and Mathur à: the speaker therefore must have lived to the east of the former. It is true that Bhāndārkar over comes this difficulty by translating these words by “Pātaliputra is to the east of Mathură,” but I doubt very much the correctness of his transla tion of pårvam in this case, as Patañjali states it expressly as his purport to give an example, where párva stands in the sense of vyavahita, i.e. of distance (not of direction). How are we now to account for two so contradictory statements P “na hyeko Devadatto yugapat Srughne Mathurāyān cha sambhavati.” One might resort to taking them as a proof that Patañjali had visited dif. ferent parts of India while he was writing the Mahálhºishya, and that one passage comes from a time when he lived to the west, the other from a

time when he lived to the east of Pātaliputra, as there may have been, according to Bhāndārkar him. self (in his first article, vol. I. p. 301), also a time when he lived in this town. Or, we might take one or the other passage as one of those which have crept into his work under the remodelling which it underwent by Ch and r fi châry à di bhih

(p. 58). Or we may waive that question altoge ther. Thus much remains: we cannot rely on either of them for attaining to certainty about Patañjali's dwelling-place, far less, as Bhāndārkar takes it, about his native place. The only support for this latter supposition is his explanation of the name of Gonda by Gonarda; but in giving it he has failed to give attention to the statement of the Kârika (though he mentions it) which adduced G on a r diya as an instance of a place situated in the east. This statement appears fatal to his view, as a district situated to the north-west of Oudh cannot well be said, in a work written in

Benares, to be situated préchai, dese. Finally, even the correctness of his identification

of

Sãket a, as mentioned in this passage of the Mahābhāshya with Oudh, may be as much called in

question, as the other passage, adduced already, by Goldstücker: “Arumad Yavanah Sāketam,”

[JULY, 1873.

as there are two or three other towns of that

name, any one of which has, prima vista, the same right to be the Sãketa of either of these two pas sages of the Mahābhāshya as Oudh has.” To proceed, Bhāndārkar's remark “on the native country of Kātyāyana would be very conclusive but for one rather serious drawback–

there is, so far as I can see, no cogency in taking the words “yathá laukikavaidikeshu” as a vårt tika ; they are a simple example quoted by Pa tañjali from the speech of the Dâkshirātya, as he refers to it in other places, for (Ballantyne p. 387) “asticha loke sarasišabdasya pravrittih, dakshin ſpathe hi mahānti sarànsi sarasya ity uchhyante.” We know from the Vákyapadłyam that the Mahābhāshya remained for some time

preserved in books only (Stenzler in Ind. Stud. W. 448) amongst the Dâkshirātya, a tradition which no doubt renders the assumption probable that we may thus have to account for some such al lusions.

For taking the word ácháryadeśiya in the sense of “āchārya the younger,” as Bhāndārkar proposes (p. 96), I can find no authority. Either we must take it like (sabrahmachäri) taddesyah (Mahá bhár. XII. 6305) as “countryman of the āchārya” (though no doubt âchâryasadeśiyo would be more correct), or it conveys the idea of a certain inferior ity in rank (ishad asamāptau, Pân. W. 3, 67); and with Goldstücker, I doubt very much, whether

Kaiyyata, who supports in general Patañjali's views against Kātyāyana, would have called him by such an epithet, reserving the title of āchārya to the latter.

-

With regard to my opinion “that the word 4chárya in such expressions as paśyati tu dehá ryah, as occurring in the Mahābhāshya, applies to

Patañjali. I think Bhāndārkar right in correcting it in the instances given, in others I am still doubt ful; the question appears not yet ripe for being finally settled. In the passage about the Maury as I must leave it to others to decide if Patañjali's words do really imply it as his opinion that Pānini himself, in referring to images that were saleable, had in his eye such as those that had come down from the

• In my Note, Ind. Stul. W. 154, I remarked that—

‘this is open to question. For there were several places called, Sãket a. Köppen (I. 112, 113), adduces very forcible reasons for the opinion that the Sãketa (Sãketu,

from Palimbothra, in the direction of the Vindhya and , the south of India, probably in the upper regions of the Soná, still northward from Amarakantaka, and by no means so

according to Hardy) mentioned so frequently in the life of

perhaps it lay even on the northern slope of the Windhya.

Buddha cannot be Ayodh y , as Lassen assumes (II. 65).

Finally, Ptolemy mentions another Sage da (the text has Sagada, see Lassen, II. 210), which however lies in further India, and consequently does not concern us here. On the whole, there is none of the places mentioned

And Lassen himself shows (III. 199, 200) that just as little

can the Ptolemaig Sage da, Sáym3.t puntpétroAts in the country of the 'A8etorađpot, who dwell Héxpt too Otºčávrov ãpovs (Ptolem. VII. 1.71), be Ayodhyā. According to the view ºf H. Kiepert, which, in answer to my inquiry, he has most kindly cºmmunicated, in an attempt tº adapt the state. ments of Ptolemy to our present geography, the position of S aged a on the Ptolemaic map would i southward

far southward into the Dakhan as Lassen assumes it to be ;

-

the name Sáket a that lies nearer the kingdom of Kanishka than the one which corresponds to the modern Oudh : and as to the tbing itself, consequently, it matters little to which of them we refer the quotation from Patañjali.'