Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

India as Known to Panini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashtadhyayi c13: Chapter VIII. Chronological Considerations

India as Known to Pāṇini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashṭādhyāyī c13

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VIII. Chronological Considerations

c13.2

Our study of the historical material preserved in the *Ashṭādhyāyī*, its geographical and cultural data, glimpses of social life and religious institutions, may help us to ascertain its chronological position.

c13.3

PREVIOUS VIEWS—The question of Pāṇini's date has been discussed by many previous writers with different conclusions. We may profitably consider them. Goldstücker in his well-known work held that Pāṇini must have lived in the seventh century before the Christian era at the latest. He rightly observed: '*The investigation of the relative position which Pāṇini holds in ancient Sanskrit literature is more likely to lead to a solid result, than speculations as to the real date of his life.*' (*Pāṇini, His Place in Sanskrit Literature*, p. 67). His position was that Pāṇini lived after Yāska and before the Buddha. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar held the same view mainly on the ground that Pāṇini does not show acquaintance with South India. Pathak assigns him to the last quarter of the seventh century B.C., just before the appearance of Mahāvīra, the junior contemporary of Gautama Buddha. (*A.B.O.R.I.*, XI., p. 83). D. R. Bhandarkar proposed seventh century B.C. in his 1918 Carmichael Lectures (p. 141), which he later changed to about the middle of sixth century B.C. (*A.I.N.*, 1921, p. 46). Charpentier thinks that the date should be 550 B.C. (*J.R.A.S.*, 1913, p. 672-74). His revised view was: 'As for the date of Pāṇini I have suggested, sometime ago, that it should be placed somewhere about 500 B.C. and I feel more and more convinced that such a suggestion is mainly correct.' (*J.R.A.S.*, 1928, p. 345). H. C. Raychaudhry holds: 'In all probability Pāṇini lived after the Persian conquest of Gandhāra in the latter half of the sixth century B.C., but before the fourth century B.C. With a date in the fifth century B.C. all the evidence accommodates itself.' (*Early History of the Vaishṇava Sect*, 1936, p. 30). Grierson believed that a century or 150 years at the most elapsed between Pāṇini and the Aśokan inscriptions, which represent the spoken dialect of the day. This would place Pāṇini about 400 B.C. Macdonell's latest view (*India's Past*) was that Pāṇini did not live later than 500 B.C. Bohtlingk, however, makes Pāṇini more modern by dating him to about 350 B.C. Weber placed him subsequent to Alexander's invasion. It is unfortunate that a scholar of his depth and mastery over grammatical intricacies should through a grievous misunderstanding of the *kārikā* on sūtra IV.2.45 about Āpiśali and Kshudraka-Mālavas, have advocated a specious argument about the relative dates of Āpiśali, Pāṇini and Alexander (*H.I.L.*, p. 222; see V. S. Agrawala, Patañjali on the Kshudraka-Mālavas, *Poona Orientalist*, Vol. I, No. 4, Jan. 1937, pp. 1-7). Liebich's opinion on this point is that we have not yet sufficient ground to come to a definite conclusion, but that in all probability Pāṇini came after the Buddha and before the commencement of the Christian era, and that he was nearer the earlier than the later unit. It would thus appear that the range of Pāṇini's date is in the opinion of scholars limited to a period of three centuries between the seventh and the fourth century B.C. We may now try to examine this question more closely within these two limits on the basis of the data set forth above.

c13.4

*LITERARY ARGUMENT*—As Liebich has summed up, the literary argument of Goldstücker leads to the following result: the *Āraṇyakas*, *Upanishads*, *Prātiśākhyas*, *Vājasaneyī Saṁhitā*, *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, *Atharvaveda*, and the six philosophical systems were unknown to Pāṇini, but he knew the *Ṛigveda*, *Sāmaveda* and *Kṛishṇa Yajurveda*. He holds that Pāṇini lived after Yāska. This argument does not bear scrutiny. Thieme from his critical study of Pāṇini's Vedic material has shown that the Vedic texts undoubtedly used by Pāṇini included the *RV*, MS., KS., TS., AV., and most probably the SV. (*Pāṇini and the Veda*, 1935, p. 63); he further opines that Śākalya's Padapāṭha of the *Ṛigveda* and the *Paippalāda Śākhā* of the *Atharvaveda* were also known to him. To take another significant example, Goldstücker had come to the conclusion that Pāṇini did not know the *Upanishad* literature, and hence his time should be antedated to the Upanishadic period. This position cannot be maintained since Pāṇini knew the word *Upanishad* in a pejorative sense (I.4.79) which must have taken considerable time to develop after the close of the Upanishadic age. On the basis of this *sūtra* Keith also accepted Pāṇini's knowledge of the Upanishads (*Tait. S.*, Eng. Trans., p. clxvii). But Pāṇini's literary horizon is not confined to Vedic texts only; it goes much further to include those several stages of literary and linguistic evolution at the end of which his own work came into existence. The Chapter on Literary Data has set forth this evidence exhaustively, and in that light we may vouchsafe that the process of literary evolution inside the Vedic *Charaṇas* had already brought into existence such literary types as the *Kalpa Sūtras* and the *Dharma Sūtras*. Outside the *Charaṇas* much of the Vedāṅga literature as *Vyākaraṇa*, with its special commentaries on Nouns and Verbs (*Nāmika* and *Ākhyātika*, IV.3.72) and a vast body of Yājñika literature and its commentaries had been compiled. Pāṇini also knows of the *Mahābhārata* (referred to for the first time in the *Āśvalāyana Gṛihya Sūtra*), the text of which must have taken shape by his time (Utgikar, *Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume*, p. 340). Further, he refers to later literary types, as *śloka* and their authors the *ślokakāra*, to secular subjects like *Naṭasūtras*, and even to classical Sanskrit works, such as *Śiśukrandīya*, *Yamasabhīya*, and *Indrajananīya*, which were the earliest examples of classical poetry and are mentioned for the first time by Pāṇini. Pāṇini thus witnessed the rise of classical Sanskrit poety and the *sūtra* and *śloka* forms of literature flourishing together in his time. Moreover, the style of his *sūtras* is much more finished, as he himself would call it (*pratishṇātaṁ sūtraṁ*), than that of some of the *Dharma-* and *Gṛihya-sūtras*. We must therefore abandon Goldstücker's estimate of Pāṇini's time.

c13.5

PĀṆINI AND THE SOUTH—The agrument that Pāṇini did not know of South India should not be pressed too far. Firstly, Yāska whom even Goldstücker considers prior to Pāṇini shows acquaintance with southern social customs and grammatical usage. As pointed out by Keith, Yāska "already mentions a southern use of the Vedic word *vijāmātṛi* for a son-in-law who pays to his father-in-law the price of the bride (*vijāmāteti śaśvad Dākshiṇājāḥ krītāpatim āchakshate*, *Nirukta*, VI.9; Keith, *His. of Sans. Lit.*, p. 15). Secondly, the Deccan was the home of Sanskrit as early as Kātyāyana's time whom Patañjali regards as a southerner on account of his partiality for the use of Taddhita (cf. *priya-taddhitāḥ Dākshiṇatyāḥ*). Kātyāyana is not far removed in time from Pāṇini. According to Eggeling: 'As regards the dates of Kātyāyana and Patañjali I accept with Professor Bühler and others, as by far the most probable the fourth and the middle of the second century B.C., respectively (*Śatapatha Br.* Intro.). Thirdly, Pāṇini besides referring to the sea and the islands lying near the coast and in mid-ocean, actually mentions that portion of the country which lies between the tropics as *antarayana deśa* (VIII.4.25). It can refer only to the Deccan lying south of the Tropic of Cancer, which passes through Kachchha and Avanti. Pāṇini also knows of Aśmaka on the Godāvarī (modern *Paithaṇa*) which was south of Avanti. He also refers to Kaliṅga on the eastern coast which too lay within the tropics. We thus see that Pāṇini's silence about the south is not quite so absolute as presumed by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar.

c13.6

PĀṆINI AND MASKARĪ—It has been shown above that Pāṇini's reference to Maskarī Parivrājaka in the light of Patañjali's explanation of that name connecting it with the *Karmāpavāda* doctrine, points to the teacher Maṅkhali Gosāla, whose doctrine of Determinism, *Daishṭika Mati*, also finds mention in Pāṇini. Dr. Hoernle holds that Gosāla lived about 500 B.C. (*Ājivikas*, *Hasting's Ency. of Religion and Ethics*, I.259 seq.). According to the *Bhagvatī Sūtra*, Gosāla founded his order at Sāvatthī sixteen years before his death. Charpentier agreeing generally with Hoernle thinks that the date of Maṅkhali's decease should be moved a little later (J.R.A.S., 1913, p. 674). This suggests the upper limit of Pāṇini's time at about 500 B.C.

c13.7

*PĀṆINI AND BUDDHISM*—The fact that Maṅkhali Gosāla was a contemporary of the Buddha and also known to Pāṇini helps us to understand some of the *sūtras* dealing with a few terms which have greater association with Buddhism, *e.g.* *Nirvāṇa* (VIII.2.50); *Kumārī Śramaṇā* (maiden nuns, II.1.70); *chīvarayate* in the sense of 'donning the monk's robe' as explained by the *Kāśikā* (*saṁchīvarayate bhikshuḥ*, III.1.20), and the religious *Saṅgha* called *Nikāya* which did not know the distinction of upper and lower (*anuttarādharya*). Such a *Saṅgha* was a typical Buddhist institution. It had been the custom among the primitive religious wanderers to be organised under a head who was called master (*Satthā*). But the Buddhist sect after his decease developed on different lines, which was looked upon by contemporaries as somewhat strange. The headship was abolished, all members of the *Saṅgha* were on a footing of equality. The principle of obedience to a Master was watered down to respect and reverence for elders and politeness for equals. For the discharge of the functions of its collective life, the whole body of monks constituted a perfectly democratic community. This is exactly the nature of the new religious *Saṅgha* envisaged in the significant Paninian term *anauttarādharya*, III.3.42). The political *Saṅgha* called *Gaṇa*, although professing to be democratic, worked on a different model in which some were *rājānaḥ* and the others commoners. These institutions mark out a date for Pāṇini after the Buddha.

c13.8

*ŚRAVISHṬHĀ AS THE FIRST NAKSHATRA*—In a list of ten *nakshatras* in *sūtra* IV.3.34, Pāṇini puts Śravishṭhā as the first. Although the other stars in the *sūtra* are not strictly in the order of the ecliptic, the commencement of the list with Śravishṭha appears to have a reason for it. Śravishṭhā was the first star in the calendar of the Vedāṅga Jyotisha which must have been compiled during the period when other Vedāṅga works including Vyākaraṇa were also written. As the subject is full of technical difficulties it would be safer to go by the opinion of experts in the matter. The relative positions of the *nakshatra* lists together with their significance is stated by G. R. Kaye as follows: 'The early lists all begin with Kṛittikā, but the *Mahābhārata* puts Śravaṇa first. The Jyotisha Vedāṅga begins with Śravishṭhā; the *Sūryaprajñapti* with Abhijit, the *Sūrya Siddhanta* with Aśvinī. But here Aśvinī is definitely equated with the vernal equinox, while Abhijit, Śravaṇa and Śravishṭhā, which are continuous, are equated with the winter solstice . . .' (The Nakshatras And Precession, *Indian Antiquary*, Vol. 50, p. 47).

c13.9

According to Tilak, as quoted by Kaye, it was stated by Garga that Kṛittikā was first for purposes of ritual, while for the purpose of the calendar Śravishṭhā was put first, the same as we find in Pāṇini's list. Leaving aside the question of the Kṛittikās standing at the head of the asterisms and the possible basis of this phenomenon in the coincidence of the vernal equinox with Kṛittikās at a certain epoch connected more properly with Vedic chronology, we must consider the implications of the reference to Śravishṭhā as the first of the Nakshatras. The generally accepted theory is that the Nakshatras were 27 or 28 constellations that roughly marked out the ecliptic. The winter solstice was at the first point of the Dhanishṭhā in the period of the Vedāṅga Jyotish when Dhanishṭhā was put first. Later on it travelled to the preceding Nakshatra Śravaṇa, and at the time when this happened the asterism Śravaṇa was reckoned as the first in the calendar.

c13.10

It is the latter phenomenon, *viz.* the recording of the Nakshatra Śravaṇa at the head of the list that is definitely alluded to in a passage of the *Mahābhārata* of considerable historical interest. Fleet discussed the epic evidence, *Śravaṇādīni ṛikshāṇi* (the Nakshatras begin with Śravaṇa, Aśvamedhaparva, 44.2) to show that 'the winter solstice had travelled westwards from the first point of Śravishṭhā (Dhanishṭhā), where it was placed by the astronomy which was preserved in the Jyotisha-Vedāṅga, and was in the preceding Nakshatra Śravaṇa (*J.R.A.S.*, 1916, p. 570). Prof. Keith carrying the discussion further admitted the correctness of Fleet's view and pointed out that the passage had been much earlier discussed by Hopkins with the same result in the *J.A.O.S.* for 1903 (*J.R.A.S.*, 1917, p. 133). It is, however, interesting to note that a passage in the Vanaparva refers to the Dhanishṭhādi reckoning of the stars (Vanaparva, 230.10) as done by Pāṇini.

c13.11

The important question to be discussed in this connection is the determining of the time when the transition of the winter solstice from Dhanishṭhā to Śravaṇa took place. This would naturally mark the lower limit of Pāṇini's date, since in his enumeration of stars (IV.3.34) he put Dhanishṭhā at the head of the list. It may be mentioned in this connection that the *Mahābhārata* attributes to Viśvāmitra the new arrangement of asterisms by substituting Śravaṇa for Dhanishṭhā. Prof. Keith taking Viśvāmitra as an astronomical reformer takes that reform to have consisted in putting Śravaṇa at the beginning of the asterisms in place of Dhanishṭhā (*J.R.A.S.*, 1917, p. 39).

c13.12

Prof. Jogesh Chandra Ray has investigated the time of the transition of the winter solstice from the first point of the Dhanishṭhā to the star Śravaṇa on the basis of astronomical calculations in his paper entitled 'The First Point of Aśvinī' (1934). His conclusion is that the Nakshatra Sravishṭhā is the star *Beta Delphini*, and that it was in the fourteenth century B.C., or in the year B.C. 1372 when the sun, moon and the star Śravishṭhā were in conjunction at the time of the winter solstice, and since one Nakshatra period changing at the rate of about one degree in 70 years takes somewhat less than a thousand years (about 933 years), it was in the fifth century B.C. that Śravaṇa occupied a position in relation to the winter solstice similar to that occupied by the Śravishṭhā previously. Counting from B.C. 1372, the precession amounted to one Nakshatra-space in B.C. 405, and the nearest year in which new moon happened on the day of the winter solstice was 401 B.C. At this time Śravaṇa was observed as the star of the winter solstice and recorded by astronomers as being the first in the list of Nakshatras, a fact implied in the statement of the *Mahābhārata* cited above (*Śravaṇādīni ṛikshāṇi*) and interpreted in this light by Fleet, Keith and others. In case the date 401 B.C. represents the year of Śravaṇa Nakshatra coinciding with the winter solstice, the literature and authors referring to Śravishṭhā as the first of the Nakshatras must be placed anterior to that date. With reference to the question of Pāṇini's date this gives us a reliable basis to fix the lower limit of his date at about 400 B.C. The upper limit as stated already may be *circa* 500 B.C. from the date of Makkhali Gosāla referred to as Maskarī in the *Ashṭādhyāyī*.

c13.13

*THE NANDA TRADITION*—There is a strong tradition preserved in both the Buddhist and Brahmanical literatures that Pāṇini was a contemporary of some Nanda king. Tārānātha, in his *History of Buddhism* compiled from older sources (1608 A.D.) states that Pāṇini lived in the time of a Nanda king. Somadeva (1063-1081) in the *Kathāsaritsāgara* and Kshemendra in the *Bṛihatkathāmañjarī* (11th century) also associate Pāṇini with king Nanda and his capital Pāṭaliputra. The newly discovered *Mañjuśrī-Mūlakalpa*, which Jayaswal placed roughly at about 800 A.D., confirms the tradition that 'king Nanda's great friend was a Brāhmaṇa, Pāṇini by name' (Jayaswal's edition, p. 14), and also adds that in the capital of Magadha there were Brāhmaṇa controversialists who gathered at the king's court. Yuan Chwang from his record of the tradition as handed down in Pāṇini's birth-place, Śalātura, states that Pāṇini after finishing his work sent it to the supreme ruler, who exceedingly prized it and issued an edict that throughout the kingdom it should be used and taught to others (*Siyuki*, p. 115). Although the name of the king and that of the town of Pāṭaliputra are not mentioned, he confirms the tradition of Pāṇini's connection with a royal court and of the patronage bestowed upon him in recognition of his work. Rājaśekhara (900 A.D.) connects Pāṇini with the *Śāstrakāra Parīkshā* of Pāṭaliputra which as we have shown corresponds with the account of the Great Synod or the literary assembly held under royal patronage which Megasthenes found functioning at Pāṭaliputra as an old institution (M'Crindle's *Megasthenes*, Frag. XXXIII; *Strabo*, XV.1). A tradition which is thus testified by different sources, Greek, Chinese, Indian, seems to be based on truth. The contact between *Udīchya* (Northern) and *Prāchya* (Eastern) scholars was a feature of intellectual life of ancient India from the time of the *Upanishads*, as in the case of Uddālaka Āruṇi of Pañchāla proceeding to the Madra country in search of higher knowledge. Pāṇini also shared in this kind of intellectual intercourse. We have seen the same thing in the career of Chāṇakya who visited Pāṭaliputra in quest of disputation (*ante*, p. 20).

c13.14

An important factor in determining Pāṇini's time would be the name and time of the Nanda king known to Pāṇini. This question is of admitted difficulty owing to confusion in the chronology of the Nandas. There are, however, two points more or less fixed: (1) the year 326 B.C. as the final year of the last Nanda king, ruling over the country of the *Prasii* and *Gangiridae* as reported to Alexander. He was overthrown by Chandragupta Maurya. The other date is obtained by reckoning from the fifth year of king Kharvela who in the Hathigumpha inscription dated in the year 165 of the era of Rājā Muriya refers to Nandarāja in connection with a canal excavated by him 300 years earlier. Another passage in the same inscription records that king Nanda carried away to Magadha the statue of the first Jina. We thus find King Nanda ruling in Pāṭaliputra about the year 465 B.C. This Nanda king can be no other than Nandivardhana (*Early History of India*, p. 44). Of the kings of Śiśunāga dynasty as given in the *Purāṇas* Nandivardhana and Mahānanda occur as the last two kings after whom came the base-born Nandas. With the point 465 B.C. falling within the reign of king Nanda, we arrive at a tolerably fixed period for the reigns of these two Nanda kings as c. 473 B.C. to 403 B.C. Mahāpadma Nanda and his sons appear to have followed from about 403 B.C. to 323 B.C. According to Tārānātha, Nanda the patron of Pāṇini was the father of Mahāpadma. It is thus evident that the Nanda king, the reputed contemporary and patron of Pāṇini of the popular stories is Mahānanda, son and successor of Nandivardhana, or the Nandarāja of the Hathigumpha inscription. In view of the joint period of the reigns of Nandivardhana and Mahānandin as stated above, we may assume the dates c. 446 to 403 B.C. for the reign of Mahānandin.

c13.15

The above hypothesis of Pāṇini’s date based on the traditional account of his contemporaneity with a Nanda king fits with the other known facts about him. The various lines of arguments in connection with Pāṇini's chronology seem to converge at this particular point, *viz.* the middle of the fifth century B.C.

c13.16

It is worth noting that grammatical literature also has preserved some references to the Nanda tradition. In the illustration *Nandopakramāṇi mānāni* (*Kāśikā* on II.4.21) we have an allusion that the weights and measures of the country were standardised for the first time by king Nanda. Again in *sūtra* VI.2.133 Pāṇini says that the word *putra* coming after the word *rājā* does not take an initial acute accent. The commentators agree that the word *rājan* includes here also the specific names of individual kings, and in this connection they remember the name of king Nanda, whose son is referred to as Nanda-putra. We have the testimony not only of Khāravela that the name of the king ruling in 465 B.C. was Nanda, but the form is also supported by the Jaina tradition and the *Bhavishya Purāṇa* as pointed out by Jayaswal (*J.B.O.R.S.*, 1917). We may identify Nanda-putra with Mahānandin, son and successor of King Nanda or Nanda-rāja, or Nandivardhana. *POLITICAL DATA*—Pāṇini refers to Magadha as one of the monarchies, but it was not yet an empire. In his time the Udīchya country was made up of a number of kingships like Gandhāra and numerous republics as the Yaudheyas and Kshudraka-Mālavas, etc. We know it as a fact that none of those kings who ever sat on the throne of Rājagṛiha or Pāṭaliputra from Bimbisāra up to the last Nanda king dethroned by Chandragupta, ever extended his empire so far as the Vāhīka country. The Greeks under Alexander found the Nandas east of the Beas. In the Prāchya country, Pāṇini mentions Magadha, Kosala, Avanti, Kaliṅga and Sūramasa as separate States (*Jana-padas*), which as stated by Kātyāyana (*vārttika* on *sūtra*, IV. 1. 168) were monarchies (*Ekarāja*).

c13.17

It was not yet the resounding epoch of Magadhan imperialism. Ajātaśatru as a Magadhan king, had annexed only the kingdoms of Kāśi and Kosala. It was only a passing phase. The last two rulers of this dynasty, Nandivardhana and Mahānandin, did not make any annexations. The Purāṇas state that it was only Mahāpadma Nanda who annexed the leading Kshatriya states of the time, *viz.* the Aikshvākus of Kosala, Pañchālas, Kāśis, Haihayas, Kaliṅgas, Aśmakas, Kurus, Maithilas, Śūrasenas and Vītihotras, and made himself the sole sovereign (*ekrāṭ*) or emperor. Therefore the period, when Pāṇini spoke of the kingdoms of Kuru, Kosala, Magadha, Kaliṅga, Avanti and Aśmaka, specifically as so many small monarchical states must have preceded the time of Mahāpadma Nanda, before about 400 B.C. Thus the political data of the *Ashṭādhyāyī* must relate to the epoch circa 450 to 400 B.C. *REFERENCE TO YAVANĀNĪ*—Pāṇini's reference to Yavana and Yavanānī writing, possesses distinct value for his date. The term *Yauna* (=Skt. *Yavana*) for Ionia and the Ionian Greeks is first used in the inscriptions of Darius I (516 B.C.). It must have been after this that the term *Yavana* came into circulation in parts of India which also formed part of the Achaemenian empire. It would not be right to suppose (as Benfey, Burnell, Weber and Wackernagel have done) that the Macedonian Greeks who first came into India with Alexander about two centuries later first became known as Yavanas. In fact the Yavanas had been known much before Alexander who already found in the Kabul valley a colony of Nysian Greeks. In the Old-Persian Inscriptions of Darius (521-485 B.C.) we first find the term *Yauna* denoting Ionia and an Ionian, and *Yaunā*, Ionians, corresponding to Sanskrit *Yavanaḥ* and *Yavanāḥ* (Sukumar Sen, *Old Persian Inscriptions*, p. 223). Both Ionia and Gandhāra, the home of Pāṇini, formed part of the empire of Darius and also continued under the reign of Xerxes, who recruited to his army a contingent of Indians from Gandhāra in his expedition against Greece about the year 479 B.C. Thus was furnished a firsthand opportunity for the Indians to become acquainted with the Greeks even before Alexander. As Prof. Keith has observed: 'If it is borne in mind that Pāṇini was a native of Gandhāra according to Hiuen Tsiang, a view confirmed by the references in his grammar, it will not seem far-fetched to consider that it was most probably from the older tradition that the name Yavanānī was derived' (*Aitareya Āraṇyaka*, p. 23). The word *lipi* borrowed from the Achaemenian *dipi* meaning 'edict' is conspicuous by absence in the Buddhist canonical works and seems to have been borrowed from Achaemenian Iran. It may further be assumed that the *Yavanānī lipi* was known only in Gandhāra and the north-west at that time (*ante*, p. 312).

c13.18

*PĀṆINI AND THE PARŚUS*—Pāṇini refers to a people called Parśus as a military community (*Āyudhjīvī Saṅgha*, V.3. 117). The term *Parśu* corresponds to the Old-Persian form *Pārsa* as given in the Behistun inscription. The Babylonian form of the name in the same Inscription is *Par-su* which comes closer to Pāṇini’s *Parśu* (*Behistun Ins.*, British Museum, pp. 159-166). It appears that Parśu was the name of a country as noted in the Babylonian version, and Pārśava was a designation of an individual member of that *Saṅgha*, a form of the name which corresponds to Babylonian *Par-sa-a-a*. A part of India was already a province of the Achaemenian empire under Cyrus and Darius, which it enriched with its military and material resources. Indians were already serving in the army of Xerxes and fighting his battles about 487 B.C., while that very small part of India paid as much revenue as the total revenue of the Persian empire. There was thus an intimate intercourse between north-western India and Persia, and Pāṇini as one born in that region must have had direct knowledge of such intercourse. Not only Gandhāra but also Sindhu corrupted into Persian *Hindu* in the inscriptions of Darius (corresponding to the Sind-Sagar Doab of the Western Panjab) came under the occupation of the Achaemenians at one time (cf. Hamadan Plate Ins., *J.R.A.S.*, 1926, pp. 633-6; *Jour. Cama Ins.*, 1927; *Memoir A.S.I.*, No. 34). (Cf. *ante*, p. 445).

c13.19

Similarly, there is also the possibility that another Persian tribe came to be known in India in Pāṇini’s time who refers to Vṛikas as an *āyudhajīvī Saṅgha*, a community that lived by the profession of arms. An individual member of this tribe was called in Sanskrit *Vārkeṇya*, a term which seems to correspond to *Varakāṇa* of the Behistun Inscription. The whole tribe was called *Vṛikāḥ*, which corresponds to the form *Varkā* in the plural number in the name *Saka-Haumavarkā* in the Naksh-i-Rustam Inscription. The Vṛikas thus appear to be a section of the war-like Saka tribes. (Cf. *ante*, pp. 443-44).

c13.20

Pāṇini notices *kanthā*-ending place-names as being common in Varṇu (Bannu valley) and the Uśīnara country between the lower course of the Chenab and Ravi, and also instances some particular names such as Chihaṇa-kantham and Maḍura-kantham, which rather appear as loan-words (*ante*, pp. 67-68). In fact *kanthā* was a Scythian word for 'town', preserved in such names as Samarkand, Khokan, Chimkent, etc.

c13.21

The above data point to somewhat closer contacts between India and Persia during the reigns of the Achaemenian emperors Darius (522-486 B.C.) and Xerxes (485-465 B.C.) as a result of their Indian conquests. This explains the use in India of such terms as *Yavana*, *Parśu*, *Vṛika*, *Kanthā*. To these we may add two others, *viz.* *jābāla* (goat-herd) and *hailihila* (poison), mentioned by Pāṇini (VI.2.38) which were really Semitic loan-words.

c13.22

This evidence points to Pāṇini's date somewhere after the time of these Achaemenian emperors.

c13.23

*THE KSHUDRAKA-MĀLVAS*—On account of Pāṇini's reference to the Kshudrakas and the Mālavas in the formation *Kshaudraka-Mālavī Senā* in the *gaṇa-sūtra* of *sūtra* IV.2.45, Weber argued that this reference brings down the time of Pāṇini (and also his predecessor Āpiśali) to after Alexander's invasion which was resisted by those two Indian tribes, whom the Greeks noted as *Oxydrakai* and *Malloi*. He argued that the Kshudrakas and the Mālavas had been usually at war with each other and a foreign invasion welded them to fight a common foe through a united army called *Kshaudraka-Mālavī-Senā*. These united forces, opposing Alexander are said by Curtius to have comprised 90,000 foot-soldiers, all fit for active service, together with 10,000 cavalry, and 900 war chariots (*Alexander's Invasion*, p. 234).

c13.24

So far as Āpiśali is concerned Weber misunderstood the text relating to *Āpiśali-vidhi* (quoted by Patañjali), which has no connection with the Kshudraka-Mālavas and is concerned only with the formation *ādhenavam*. Its purpose was restricted to showing the prevalence of *Tadantavidhi* in the *Sāmūhika* suffixes.

c13.25

Secondly, the confederate military arrangement between the Kshudrakas and the Mālavas was not a temporary makeshift, but permanent arrangement so as to find its way into current language in the phrase *Kshaudraka-Mālavī Senā* as a special grammatical formation. There is therefore every likelihood that Pāṇini himself had composed the *Gaṇa-sūtra Kshudraka- Mālavāt Senā-saṁjñāyām*, on the basis of his personal knowledge of such an army. In fact the details given by the Greek writers rather indicate that this joint army had existed before Alexander and was not the outcome of any emergency. Curtius definitely states that the Kshudrakas and the Mālavas *in accordance with their custom* had selected as their head a brave warrior of the nation of the Kshudrakas who was an experienced general (*Alexander's Invasion*, p. 236). Unfortunately, at the time of giving battle to Alexander the events took a turn just opposite to what Weber would have us believe. Diodoros expressly states 'that the Kshudraka-Mālavas could not agree as to the choice of a leader and ceased in consequence to keep the field together' (*Alex. Inv.*, p. 236, f.n.). Curtius almost confirms this version of Diodoros by saying that 'overnight a dissension arose amongst them and they retired to their mountain recesses.' He goes one step further to acquaint us with the subsequent course of events saying that most of the army took shelter in the fortified city of the Kshudrakas which was besieged by Alexander, and this was followed by the most heroic resistance and the fiercest attack that the Greek army had experienced so far, in which Alexander himself received a deadly wound. Obviously after their separation from the Mālavas, the Kshudrakas bore the brunt of the battle singly. Finally, peace was negotiated on behalf of the fighters by depuing one hundred ambassadors whom the Greeks received with uncommon hospitality and honour that would be rather unusual in the case of a crushed enemy. The grammatical illustration which Patañjali repeats thrice in the *Bhāshya* (*Ekākibhiḥ Kshudrakair-jitam, asahāyair-ityarthaḥ*, I.83; I.321; II.412) presents a true picture of the events as preserved on the Indian side, namely that the Kshudrakas were matched alone against the invaders and emerged triumphant.

c13.26

It is thus certain both on the testimony of Pāṇini and the Greek writers that the league of the Kshudraka-Mālava army had been in existence long before Alexander.

c13.27

The numerous *Āyudhajīvī Saṅghas* in the Panjab and North-West India point to political conditions as existed before the rise of Mauryan Imperialism. Pāṇini treats of the development of *Saṅgha* polity as if it were at its zenith. Gradually *Saṅghas* began to decline and the march of the Greeks through their land completely exposed their political weakness. This made the *Saṅghas* unpopular and created a movement for their unification of which indications are found in Kauṭilya's *Arthaśāstra*. Pāṇini lived in the peak period of the *Saṅghas*, and an interval of about a century should be allowed for their decline against the rise of a centralised monarchy or empire. This would assign a date to Pāṇini a hundred years before the rise of Mauryan imperialism.

c13.28

*PĀṆINI AND KAUṬILYA*—It has been argued that Kauṭilya writes a language which, though archaic in certain respects is decidedly later than the language of the *Ashṭādhyāyī* (Thieme, *Pāṇini and the Veda*, p. 80). From the foregoing studies it is apparent that the works of both authors know of many similar institutions. Sometimes the *Arthaśāstra* appears as the best commentary on Pāṇini in regard to certain specific and peculiar terms referred to by both, e.g. *Maireya*, *Kāpiśāyana*, *Devapatha*, *Ākranda*, *Yuktarohī*, *Upanishad*, *Vinaya*, *Parishad*, *Vishya*, *Śvāgaṇika*, *Āpamityaka*, *Yāchitaka*, *Ārya-kṛita*, *Yaujana-śatika Dūta*, *Ashadakshīṇa*, *Vyushṭa*, *Vaiyushṭa* transactions, *Purusha* and *Hastī* measures, *Kedāra*, *Parīkheyī*, *Māhisha*, *Adhyaksha*, *Yukta*, *Avakraya*, etc. In the foregoing studies we have oft-times dealt with institutions of all kinds which are not only similar but sometimes identical in the *Ashṭādhyāyī* and the *Arthaśāstra*. The common evidence of the names of punch-marked coins, as well as weights and measures, as noticed in the body of this work, furnishes some striking parallels between Pāṇini and Kauṭilya. As Thieme puts it, Kauṭilya was junior to Pāṇini and the period of one century may reasonably be allowed to have intervened between the two.

c13.29

*EVIDENCE OF COINS*—The numismatic data of the *Ashṭādhyāyī* show that it is older than the *Arthaśāstra*. For instance, Pāṇini's (1) *Nishka*, (2) *Suvarṇa*, (3) *Śāṇa*, (4) *Śatamāna*, point to older coinage not known to Kauṭilya. Similarly Kauṭilya does not know of the significant coin names *Viṁśatika* and *Triṁśtaka* mentioned in the *Ashṭādhyāyī*, of which actual examples have been found (*ante*, 270-71). The evidence of Pāṇini's *Śatamāna* coin is of great importance in this connection. The *Śatamāna* coinage must have been in mintage and circulation in the time of Pāṇini. Its beginnings may be placed a few centuries earlier. It is significant to note in this connection that the reference to *Śatamāna* in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* is found only in those Books which are associated with the name of Yājñavalkya, *e.g.* in Kāṇḍa V in which Yājñavalkya is quoted as authority and in Kāṇḍas XII, XIII and XIV. There is not a single reference to the *Śatamāna* coin in the Agnichayana Books (VI-X) in which Śāṇḍilya to the exclusion of Yājñavalkya figures as the principal authority. This accords with the view that Yājñavalkya was considered as a late Brāhmaṇa-writer in comparison with the earlier works of Aitareya and Śāṭyāyana, etc. The chronological inference is that the period of currency of the *Śatamāna* coin was confined to a few centuries (c. eighth-fifth cent. B.C.) from which Kauṭilya was removed in time, but which were nearer to the epoch of the *Taittirīya* and *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇas* and portions of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, which alone mention this coin.

c13.30

Another coin-name of much more precise chronological value is the heavy type of *Kārshāpaṇa*, called *Viṁśatika*, which was 20 *māshas* or 40 *rattis* in weight. The silver *Karshāpaṇa* minted by the Mauryan administration, as shown by actual finds, and as mentioned in the *Arthaśāstra* weighed only 16 *māshas*. Pāṇini on the other hand seems to know both classes of silver coins, *viz.* the *Viṁśatika* of heavier weight as its name signifies, and the *Kārshāpaṇa* of standard weight, which although unspecified was most likely of 32 *rattis* as stated in Manu and Kauṭilya. We have therefore to assign a stage to Pāṇini in which *Viṁśatika* and *Kārshāpaṇa* were current coins at one and the same time. This held good in the fifth century B.C. in the time of the Nandas. The heavier *kahāpaṇa* of 20 *māsas* (*vīsatimāso kahāpaṇo*) was current in Rājagṛiha during Bimbisāra's reign. It was the local currency of different *Janapadas*. The Nandas felt called upon to introduce for the first time a uniform system of weights and measures and standard coinage for their empire extending from Kaliṅga to Pañchāla. This system is known in medical works as *Māgadha māna* as distinguished from the *Kāliṅga māna* which continued as a separate system. The coinage of the Nandas showed the following new features: (1) a standard *Kārshāpaṇa* of 16 *māshas* in place of *Viṁśatika* of 20 *māshas*; (2) punching of obverse and reverse symbols on two sides of a coin instead of on the same side as before; (3) increasing the number of obverse symbols to 5 in each group, instead of 4 as on *Viṁśatika* and earlier coins; (4) introducing the Sun and Six-armed (*Shaḍara*) symbols as constant in the five-symbol groups; (5) simplifying the forms, but greatly adding to the variety of the symbols punched. The new *Kārshāpaṇa* of 32 *rattis* of the Nandas may be actually identified in the thin and broad flat pieces with clear symbols punched on them, which are known from actual hoards. The thick and small variety in which peacock- or crescent-on-hill symbols appear belongs to the Maurya period. The distinction of the earlier and later *Kārshāpaṇas* is best seen in the form of their six-armed symbols, those having an oval as a constituent are earlier than those with an arrow or taurine.

c13.31

On the basis of his numismatic data Pāṇini thus belongs to the period of transition between the age of Bimbisāra and Kauṭilya, i.e. between the sixth and the fourth century B.C. A date in the fifth century B.C. admirably reconciles the coin-references of the *Ashṭādhyāyī*.

c13.32

*PERSONAL NAMES*—The evidence of personal names current in Pāṇini's time also points to the above chronological position. The *Gotra*-names were current in the *Brāhmaṇas* and the *Upanishads*, whereas in the Maurya period two other features appeared, *viz.* contraction of personal names and star-names, i.e. personal names derived from the names of stars. The *Ashṭādhyāyī* represents a stage between the two when the *Gotra*-names and the *Nakshatra*-names were in use side by side. The *Gotra-nāma* was an old Vedic custom, whereas the *Nakshatra-nāma* was a new feature approved by the *Gṛihya-sūtras*. There is no scope for contraction in a *Gotra*-name, and so the rules of contraction detailed by Pāṇini applied to names other than *Gotra* names. In this respect the early Buddhist literature shows an equal preference for *Gotra*- and *Nakshatra*-names and is thus closer in time to Pāṇini.

c13.33

*PĀṆINI AND THE JĀTAKAS*—In many respects Pāṇini's language is earlier than that of the *Jātakas*, but in some cases the coincidence between the two is striking and helpful for chronology. Attention may be drawn here especially to the material for mounting chariots, *viz.* *dvaipa*, *vaiyāghra* and *pāṇḍukambala*, which are mentioned in Pāṇini and the *Jātakas* (*ante*, p. 150). The expressions cited above represent older conditions, and as a matter of fact these words occur in the *Gāthā* portions of the *Jātakas* which are admittedly earlier than the prose portions. A date in the fifth century B.C. would explain the linguistic similarities between the *Ashṭādhyāyī* and the *Jātakas*.

c13.34

*PĀṆINI AND THE MADHYAMAPATHA*—Pāṇini is always distinguished by his unique balance of judgment in reconciling opposite views and looking at both sies of a grammatical controversy.

c13.35

While examining the grammatical data of Pāṇini we have already drawn detailed attention to about half a dozen instances of this spirit of synthesis (*ante*, pp. 352-5). In such controversies as *Mahā-Sāṁjñās* and *Kṛittrima-Saṁjñās*, *Jāti* and *Vyakti*, *Anukaraṇa*, *Upasarga* as *Vāchaka* and *Dyotaka*, *Dhātū* as *Kriyā* and *Bhāva*, *Vyutpatti* and *Avyutpatti* of words, etc., Pāṇini's position is not exclusive, but reconciles the two extremes. In this respect Pāṇini's work can be said to be a true product of its age, the epoch of *Majjhima Paṭipadā*, the best representative of which was another master-mind, the Buddha himself. Those who accepted the path of the golden mean as the ideal course to follow avoided insistence on extreme views, and we actually find Pāṇini avoiding the mistakes of his predecessors like Śākaṭāyana who over-emphasized the verbal derivation of all nouns. Pāṇini presents his material throughout the *Ashṭādhyāyī* with an all-comprehensive outlook and synthesis which made his work so popular and acceptable.

c13.36

*SUMMARY*—We may now summarise these considerations. The various dates assigned by scholars to Pāṇini range from the seventh to the fourth century B.C. The majority of scholars are inclined towards the fifth and the fourth century B.C. The view taken in this work is that a date nearer the fifth century B.C. appears more probable on the basis of the available data. It takes Pāṇini to be a contemporary of the Nanda king named Mahānanda and thus assigns him to the middle of the fifth century B.C.

c13.37

The literary argument offers a corrective to the extreme views of Goldstücker about the types of literature and literary works known to Pāṇini. Weber's argument for a date after Alexander's invasion based on references to Yavanānī script and to the confederated army of the Kshudraka-Mālavas has been duly answered. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar's argument based on Pāṇini's supposed ignorance of the south has also been largely met by the fact that Pāṇini's geographical horizon extended from Kamboja (Pamir) to Aśmaka on the Godāvarī, and from Sauvīra (Sind) in the west to Kaliṅga and Sūramasa (Sūrmā valley of Assam) in the east, and also included that part of South India which lies within the tropics (VIII.4.25) and also some islands situated in mid-ocean.

c13.38

The references to such specifically Buddhist terms as *Masakarī*, *Kumārī-Śramaṇā* (maiden nuns), *Nikāya* and *Nirvāṇa*, suggest that Pāṇini came after the Buddha.

c13.39

The argument from numismatic data and the nature of current personal names given in the *Ashṭādhyāyī* points in the direction that Pāṇini lived in the same cultural epoch as produced the earliest Pali canon.

c13.40

Moreover, the striking resemblance of several technical terms between Pāṇini and Kauṭilya, indicates that Pāṇini preceded Kauṭilya but was not far removed from his time.

c13.41

The astronomical argument is based on the fact that in the list of ten star-names given in *sūtra* IV.3.34 Śravishṭhā begins the list. This points to the astronomical reckoning of the Vedāṅga Jyotisha in which Śravishṭhā was the first of the *nakshatras*. This position of Śravishṭhā continued from B.C. 1372 to about 401 B.C., *i.e.* the close of the fifth century B.C. After this the asterism of Śravaṇa was taken to commence the star-list. This gives us a definite lower limit for Pāṇini's time.

c13.42

The concensus of this varied evidence is in favour of assigning to Pāṇini a date about the middle of the fifth century B.C. This chronological pointer available for the *Ashṭādhyāyī* and its distinguished author is somewhat singular in comparison to what we possess for so many other works and master-minds in the literary history of ancient India.

Janapada and the Greek City-State

c13.s1.1

*JANAPADA ANALOGOUS TO CITY-STATE*—The *Charana*, *Gotra* and *Janapada* are three typical Pāṇinian institutions of educational, social and political life respectively. It is not without significance that the term *Janapada* is conspicuous by absence in the Vedic Saṁhitās. It occurs only in the latest phase of the Brāhmaṇa period, and found its full development in the period of the *Ashṭādhyāyī*. A comparative study of human societies affords innumerable analogies, and we find unmistakable parallels between the *Janapada* State in India and the City-State in Greece. Both flourished at about the same period. In Greece a large number of City-States represented so many isolated communities, which were self-contained and had their own systems of government, but all of them had very similar social and religious customs and institutions. A few like Athens and Sparta were more important than others.

c13.s1.2

*JANAPADAS IN INDIA*—In India the number of *Janapada* States was quite large. Pāṇini gives a rich picture of *Janapadas* extending from Kamboja to Aśmaka and Sauvīra to Sūramasa, of which the geographical aspect has been dealt with in Chapter II and illustrated in the accompanying maps. The *Janapada* experiment in India was on a much larger scale than in the case of Greek city-states with regard to their extension both in place and time. The fuller lists of Indian *Janapadas* containing about 175 names, are preserved in the Bhuvanakosha chapters of the *Purāṇas* (*Vāyu*, ch. 45; *Matsya*, ch. 114; *Mārkaṇḍeya*, ch. 57; *Brahmāṇḍa*, ch. 49; *Vāmana*, ch. 13; cf. D. C. Sircar, Text of the Puranic List of Peoples, *I.H.Q.*, XXX, 1945, pp. 297-314). Almost all *Janapada* names in Pāṇini are traceable to that list. The territorial divisions envisaged there are (1) Madhya, (2) Prāchya, (3) Udīchya, (4) Dakshiṇāpatha, (5) Aparānta, (6) Vindhyaprishṭha, and (7) Parvata, and the Janapada names are grouped accordingly, which affords a clear picture of the States spread in all parts of the country. The *Parvatāśrayin Janapadas* of the *Purāṇas* find pointed mention in Pāṇini as *āyudha-jīvins* of the Parvata country (IV.3.91), i.e., military high-landers settled in the north-west of India and in the Trigarta country, as explained above (*ante*, pp. 434-6).

c13.s1.3

*BOUNDARIES*—In Greece the city-states were scattered mostly amongst hills and valleys and separated by well-defined boundaries. In India also the *Janapadas* had demarcated boundaries to which Pāṇini refers as *tadavadhi* (IV.2.124). The *Kāśikā* observes that other *Janapadas* formed boundaries of a *Janapada* surrounding it on all sides (*tad-avadbirapi janapada eva gṛihyate*). A chain of *Janapadas* occupied the entire stretch of land, and some of them were big enough to admit of several territorial divisions of which the names are regulated by *sūtras* VI.2.103 and VII.3.12; *e.g.*, the Sindhu divided Pūrva-Gandhāra with capital at Takshaśilā from Apara-Gandhāra with its chief town Pushkalāvatī; similarly Pūrva-Madra, Apara-Madra, and Pūrva-Pañchāla, Uttara-Pañchāla, and Dakshiṇa-Pañchāla.

c13.s1.4

*ACROPOLIS*—But it is more in the development of the *Janapada* State through the ages that we find a striking parallel with the Greek City-State. The *polis* or the city was the nerve-centre of the City-State, and it was opposed to the open village. The "fluid" term *polis* signified the acropolis or the fortified town. In India also each *Janapada* had its fortified town or capital. An interesting list of sixteen *Mahājanapadas* with their names of capitals is well-known in the Buddhist texts, and similarly twenty-five *Janapadas* in the Jaina literature together with names of their capitals.

Evolution of the City-State and the Janapada

c13.s1.t1.1

*PADA*—In the evolution of the City-State there were four well-defined stages known as Genos, Phratries, Phulai and Polis. The *polis* grew out of small beginnings, 'from the clan—the *genos*, the patriarchal clan, "the first unit of society"—and passes through the associations of families, the phratries, and the military groupings of clans, the *phulai* tribes, to the political organism which grew out of a settled life and synœcism' (Glotz, *The Greek City and Its Institutions*, Foreword by Henri Berr, p. ix).

c13.s1.t1.2

The last mentioned political organism was the City-State. The analogy holds true in the case of the evolution of the *Janapada* State in India, which had its humble beginnings in the clan or *Jana*; the *Jana* developed a number of individual units called families or *Kula*, and the associations of families formed the ruling Kshatriya tribes which wielded political power and are termed *Janapadins* in Pāṇini (IV.3.100). The *Janapadins* were, according to the *Kāśikā*, the ruling class in the *Janapada* (*Janapada-svāminaḥ kshatriyāḥ*). This was the stage when the *Janapada* State emerged in its full-fledged development. The correspondence of the *Janapada* and the City-State may be set forth below: I. Clan [*Genos*] *Jana*. II. Families [*Phratries*] *Kula*. III. Tribes [*Phulai*] *Janapadinaḥ*. IV. City [*Polis*] *Janapada*.

c13.s1.t1.3

*ABHIJANA*—We can now see why in the whole of the Vedic literature there is no reference to the *Janapada* institution, whereas the *Jana* finds repeated mention. The Bharata *Jana* tracing itself to a common ancestor was a compact clan. It must have expanded and the outcome was the increasing importance of independent families or *Kulas*, which ultimately developed into *Gotras* and *Vaṁśas*. The clan was not yet settled in any particular area, but with the growth of independent families it tended to lose its mobility and ultimately the tribe or *Jana* came to be tied down to an abode, called *Abhijana* in Pāṇini (IV.3.90), literally 'the region that had come under the "land-taking" of a *Jana*'.

c13.s1.t1.4

*JANAPADIN*—The territory of the *Jana* became the *Janapada*, whence the original settlers who formed the governing class were called *Janapadins*. In the *Janapada* there came to live also other peoples or aliens who were distinguished from the privileged class of rulers or *Janapadins* proper. The latter were consecrated to rulership and designated as *abhishikta vaṁśya*. In *sūtra* VI.2.34, Pāṇini refers to the *Rājanyas* of the Andhaka-Vṛishṇi *Saṅgha*, and, as clearly stated by the *Kāśikā*, the consecrated Kshatriyas of that confederacy formed the object of the grammatical rule. The evidence of the Lichchhavis of the Vṛiji *Janapada* is well-known; the waters of their *maṅgala-pushkariṇī* were used for the consecration of 7,707 *Rājans* and were closely guarded against others. It is, however, clear that in its later stages the *Janapada*, irrespective of the fact whether it was republican (more strictly oligarchical as in Greece) or monarchical (i.e. *gaṇādhīna* or *ekarāja*, IV.1.168, *vārt.*) consisted of a very mixed population. Patañjali explicitly says that members of the ruling Kshatriya class in the Mālava republic were called Mālavya, and in the Kshudraka Kshaudrakya, but the slaves and free labourers amongst them were excluded from its application.¹ In practice the name of the ruler in a monarchical state and the name of the Kshatriya members who constituted the privileged aristocracy (called *apatya*) were both derived from the name of the *Janapada* (*Kshatriya-samāna-śabdāj-janapadāt tāsya rājany-apatyavat*, *vārt.* on IV.1.168). Thus the king of Pañchāla and a Kshatriya descendant of Pañchāla were both called Pāñchāla.

First 49 of 79 passages. Read on

Linked texts (23)