A History of Sanskrit Literature c15.s1.4

c15.s1.4

Indian tradition, none of it early, unquestionably sets down the Çatakas as the work of one man, and does not consider them anthologies. Of this man unfortunately no clear memory remained, but, as this applies equally even to Kālidāsa, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that like that writer he belonged to a fairly early date, before authors became sufficiently self-conscious to ensure the handing down of their memory by embodying references to themselves in their poems. But we do learn from the Buddhist pilgrim I-tsing that about forty years before he wrote, therefore about 651, there died in India a grammarian, Bhartṛhari, certainly the author of the *Vākyapadīya*, the last independent contribution to Indian grammatical science. Of him I-tsing¹ tells the tale that he ever wavered between the monastic and the lay life, moving seven times between the cloister and the world in the manner permitted to Buddhists. On one occasion, when entering the monastery, he bade a student have a chariot ready for him without, that he might depart in it if worldly longings overcame his hard-won resolution. I-tsing also cites a verse in which Bhartṛhari reproaches himself for his inability to decide between the attractions of the two lives. It is natural, therefore, to accept the suggestion of Max Müller² that we have here a reference to the author of the Çatakas, though it is certain that I-tsing does not actually refer to them, for the vague terms in which he alludes to his writing on the principles of human life cannot well be treated as a real allusion to the Çatakas. It is also clear that Bhartṛhari in the Çatakas is not a Buddhist, though he, like Buddhists, arrives at counsels of freedom from desire and resignation, but a Çaiva of the Vedānta type, to whom Çiva appears as the most perfect presentation of the final reality, the Brahman. We may, of course, suppose that Bhartṛhari was once a courtier—as his reflections on the miseries of serving the great attest—and a Çaiva, and that in old age he became a Buddhist, and that I-tsing either did not learn of his Çatakas or deliberately ignored them. Or he may even have composed the Çatakas after his investigation of Buddhism had decided him upon abandoning that faith; such a fact I-tsing would not record with any pleasure, even if he knew of it. Or, if he were a mere compiler, the difficulty would disappear. It must, however, be said that it is not probable that we are to explain the notices as a confusion on the part of I-tsing of two Bhartṛharis, one older, the poet, and the grammarian, for it has been shown by very substantial evidence¹ that Bhartṛhari the grammarian was actually a Buddhist, a fact which explains in large measure the neglect accorded to his work. On the whole it seems most probable that Max Müller’s conjecture may stand.