The Antiquities of Orissa v1.c11.108

v1.c11.108

**Vaisnavism of the time of Panini and the *Itihāsas* :** Turning now to Pāṇini and the *Itihāsas*, i. e., the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the *Mahābhārata*, we find not only a distinct cult having Viṣṇu for its object of adoration, fully established, but the doctrine of his incarnation put forth with great confidence. Pāṇini was familiar with the names of some of the principal personages in the history of Kṛṣṇa, and adduced the names of Kṛṣṇa, Pradyumna, Arjuna, Aniruddha, Vāsudeva and Subhadrā to illustrate his rules,⁵¹ and, in illustration of one, which says that "the affix *kaṇ* should be elided when livelihood is implied", he observes "those objects which are taken about from house to house, by idol-worshippers to earn a livelihood are called images of gods", (*deva-prakṛtayaḥ*) and then adds by way of example Vāsudeva, Śiva and Āditya, or carriers of idols of Vāsudeva, Śiva and Āditya,⁵² showing clearly that in his time not only separate sets of sectarians of the three gods were fully established, but that some of them earned their livelihood by carrying about idols as a means of begging. It proves also that Viṣṇu at the time had been so thoroughly identified with Kṛṣṇa, his alleged incarnation, that he was indicated by the derivative name, son of Vasudeva, and not by his own original designation. In another passage salutation to Kṛṣṇa is enjoined as calculated to make a journey pleasant.⁵³ In a third, the word Vāsudeva is explained as meaning a person, who is devoted to, or has faith in Vāsudeva.⁵⁴ These passages are of considerable importance as proving the currency of the Kṛṣṇa cult from before the time of Pāṇini, or over a thousand years before the commencement of the Christian era. If we accept Max Müller's low estimate of the age of Pāṇini to be the right one, it would still take us beyond the sixth century before Christ. The passages, it is true, occur as examples, and Goldstücker demurs to the historical value of those portions of Pāṇini's work in which examples are given ; but regarding them Max Müller very justly observes : “It was impossible to teach or to use Pāṇini's *Sūtras* without examples. These necessarily formed part of the traditional grammatical literature long before the Great Commentary was written, and are, therefore, of a much higher historical value than is commonly supposed”. ⁵⁵ But this argument apart, the distinction which Bṛndāvaṇa and Mathurā, particularly the latter, the seats of some of Kṛṣṇa's early exploits, attained at an early epoch, as holy cities, and the references made to them by Greek authors, such as Arrian and Pliny, show that the Kṛṣṇa cult had become popular and current long before the time of the Greek invasion.