The History of Indian Literature c9.128

Language: English

c9.128.1

Páṇini's work has continued to be the basis of grammatical research and the standard of usage in the language down even to the present time. Owing to its frequent obscurity it was early commented upon, and—a circumstance to which there is no parallel elsewhere in the literature—some of these earliest interpretations have come down to us. At their head stand the *Paribhâshás*, or explanations of single rules, by unknown authors; next come the *Várttikas* (from *vritti*, 'explanation') of Kátyáyana;[^asterisk] and after these the *Mahábháshya* of Patañjali. With regard to the date of Kátyáyana, the statement of Hiuan Thsang, to the effect that 300 years after Buddha's death, *i.e.*, in B.C. 240,dagger "*le docteur Kia to yan na*" lived at Támasavana in the Panjáb, is by Böhtlingk referred to this Kátyáyana; but when we remember that the same traveller assigns to Páṇini's second existence a date so late as 500 years after Buddha, such a reference of course becomes highly precarious.

c9.128.2

Besides, the statement is in itself an extremely indefinite one, the "docteur" in question not being described as a grammarian at all, but simply as a descendant of the Kátya family.²³⁴ Even admitting, however, that the reference really is to him, it would still be in conflict with the tradition—in itself, it is true, of no particular authority—of the Kathá-sarit-ságara, which not only represents Kátyáyana as the contemporary of Páṇini, but identifies him with Vararuchi, a minister of King Nanda, the father of Chandragupta (Σανδρόκυπτος), according to which, of course, he must have flourished about B.C. 350. As regards the age of the Mahábháshya,²³⁵ we have seen that the assertion of the Rája-taraṅgiṇí as to its introduction into Kashmír in the reign of Abhimanyu, the successor of Kanishka, *i.e.*, between A.D. 40 and 65, is, for the reasons above assigned, in the meantime discredited.²³⁶ For the present, therefore, we are without information as to the date of those interpretations, just as we are regarding the date of Páṇini himself. But when once they are themselves in our hands, it will certainly be possible to gather from their contents, by means of the great number of words they contain, a tolerably clear image of the time when they originated,²³⁷ in the same way as we can even now attempt, although only in broad outline, a picture of the time of Páṇini.∗ With regard to the latter, the condition of the text, in a critical point of view, forms a main difficulty.

c9.128.3

A few of the Sútras found in it are already notoriously acknowledged not to be Páṇini's; and there is the further peculiar circumstance, that, according to the scholiasts of the Calcutta edition, fully a third of the entire Sútras are not interpreted in the Mahábháshya at all.† The question then arises whether this is merely because these particular Sútras are clear and intelligible of themselves, or whether we may not also here and there have to suppose cases where the Sútras did not yet form part of the text at the time when this commentary was composed. The so-called *gaṇas*, or lists of words which follow one and the same rule, and of which, uniformly, only the initial word is cited in the text itself, are for the present wholly without critical authenticity, and carry no weight, therefore, in reference to Páṇini's time. Some such lists must, of course, have been drawn up by Páṇini; but whether those now extant are the same is very problematical: indeed, to some extent it is simply impossible that they can be so.

c9.128.4

Nay, such of them even as chance to be specified singly in the Mahábháshya can, strictly speaking, prove nothing save for the time of this work itself.∗ Here, too, another word of caution is necessary,—one which ought, indeed, to be superfluous, but unfortunately is not, as experience shows,—namely, that care must be taken not to attribute to words and examples occurring in the scholia, composed so recently as fifty years ago, of the Calcutta edition of Páṇini, any validity in reference to the time of Páṇini himself. No doubt such examples are usually derived from the Mahábháshya; but so long as this is not actually proved to be the case, we are not at liberty at once to assume it; and besides, even when it is clear that they are actually borrowed from the Mahábháshya, they are good only for the time of this work itself, but not for that of Páṇini.²³⁸