230

CORRESPONDENCE.

August, 1873.]

to Sanskrit authors could not have originated so

early. Dr. Kern's book I saw and glanced over the preface of, several years ago; but I did not re member his explanation of the word Midhyamika when I wrote my article in the Indian Antiquary,

vol. I. p. 299, though I always thought the word meant some such thing. But soon after the article appeared, and before Professor Weber's criticism on it was received, I read Dr. Kern's preface again, so that it was not Professor Weber that first directed my attention to it. Now to come to Professor Weber's remarks on my article at vol. II. p. 69. The Professor still adheres to his interpretation of the passage Mathuráyih Pátaliputram pººrvam. And his reason is Patañ jali's use of the word vyavahita in that connection, which he thinks means ‘distance.'

Now the word

vyavahita, so far as I know, never means ‘distance,’ but “covered,’ ‘concealed,' or “separated' by some thing intervening ; as, for instance, England is vya

lived to the east of Pātaliputra. The only proper meaning therefore is “Pātaliputra is to the east of Mathurá.” And even if we take Professor Weber's

explanation, “Pātaliputra is before Mathură,” it does not follow that the speaker, supposing he was Patañjali—which however is not the case—was to the east of Pātaliputra, any more than it does when I say “the horse is before the cart” that I am to that side of the cart, and not this, or to this,

and not that. The word pârca no doubt means primarily ‘before,' but when applied to show the re

lations between places the anteriorness of one from another is to be taken with reference to the usual

standard in such comparisons, namely—the rising sun. Hence the word comes to signify the “east,’ and as used in connection with places it has always this sense. I have no doubt therefore that my in terpretation of the passage is correct, and that it does not in any way militate against the con clusion I have drawn from

another as to

the

ference to what standard is the word pårva or

native place of Patañjali. I do not see why a district very near Oudh may not be said to be situated prichtim dese. Benares was not the point from which the bearings of different places in India were taken. Prägdesa, Udagdesa, &c. were settled terms; and one living in Prägdesa

“preceding' to be understood P For a time he

could call himself a Práchya. Amara defines

takes the minvitta, or condition of a grammatical change, to be the standard, and says that the prin cipal example of this stra, viz. patvyā or mridvyd is also explained or shown to fit with the rule on this supposition. How does it fit P. The state of the case in patvyá is this:—first we have patu, then & the feminine termination changed to y, and

Prägdeşa as that lying to the south and east of

vahita from us, by several countries and seas in tervening: or in the word Râmena, R is vyavahita from n by 4, m, and e. The context of the passage in Patañjali is shortly this:–In the siltra achah

parasmin párva vidhau, the question is, With re

after that, 4, the termination of the instrumental

singular. This last is the nimitta of the change of the previous i to y. Then what is to be done by applying the sūtra is-to regard y as a vowel and change the w of patu to v. But says the ob jector, the rule in the sūtra does not apply here on the supposition you have made, for the w of patu is not pårva from 4, which is the nimitta, as it is separated from it by y substituted for 4. Then,

says the original speaker, the word pſºrva is used not only to signify a thing that immediately pre cedes another, but also to signify one that precedes but is separated from it by something intervening, as in such expressions as this: “Pātaliputra is

the Sarāvati.

Professor Weber gives no reason for thinking that yathá laukika-vaidikeshu is not a värtika.

But this passage is explained by Patañjali and made the subject of a dissertation just as other vártikas are. The whole argument given by the author of the Mahābhāshya, a portion of which was reproduced by me in my article, is contained in these three aphorisms, the last of which is the one under

phrase in use and current among the people to

Šabdārtha

Achârya” incidentally as the author in connection with the first of these, which Āchārya must be Kātyāyana here, since these are not stºtras, and Nagojibhatta f expressly calls the first two vir tikas.

The third also must then be a vårtiha,

since it is of a piece in every respect with the other two, and completes the argument, which

párvain from Mathurá,” in which pårvam is used though several places intervene between the two towns. Now, it is plain that this is given as a

discussion :-1, Siddhe

sambandhe , 2, lokatortha-prayukte Šabdaprayoge $dstrena dharma-niyamah ; 3, yathá laukika wai dikeshw. These are all explained and, as texts, descanted upon by our author; he mentions

without it would be incomplete. The aphorism cannot be the composition of Patañjali, for he makes it the subject of his criticism, and says that

serve as an authority for taking pººrva in a certain sense, and therefore, if Professor Weber's inference

is correct, all people using the expression, i. e. the Sanskrit-speaking population of India, must have

• Ballantine, pp. 47, 49.

the words contained in it are Dakhani words. It cannot understand the connection between this

passage and the one quoted by Professor Weber about the use of sarasí in the South. + Ibid. p. 53.

What has