Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c20.15

c20.15

Orientalists, both Indian and European, have based an argument on वासुदेवार्जुनाभ्यां वुन् (IV. 3. 98) of Pāṇini. It has been argued that the Sūtra establishes the worship of Vāsudeva in and before the time of Pāṇini. But the context shows that no religious *bhakti* is meant. Pāṇini uses the term in the sense of political or constitutional allegiance. Take for instance, the *bhakti* owed to the holders-of-*janapadas* in IV. 3. 100. These holders-of-*janapadas* were certainly not worshipped. Take again, the preceding Sūtra, IV. 3. 97, where *bhakti* to 'Mahārāja' is stated. Now nobody would contend that Mahārāja, either a man or a country, was worshipped. Then we have to take into consideration the previous Sūtras where place of origin (अभिजन) as opposed to domicile (निवास) in connexion with the highlands, Sindhu and Takshaśilā and Salātura, etc., is discussed. There is not a trace of religious *bhakti* (devotion). Again, scholars have taken note of Vāsudeva while Arjuna who is placed along with Vāsudeva in the same Sūtra has been ignored. There is no evidence that Arjuna was deified. *Bhakti* to these two Kshatriyas is the political *bhakti*. The party loyal to Vāsudeva and the party loyal to Arjuna must have been well-known in literature like the *varga* of Vāsudeva mentioned by Kātyāyana (Kielhorn. Vol. II., p. 295). Patañjali is perplexed as to why a separate Sūtra वासुदेवार्जुनाभ्यां वुन् should have been given when there was a Sūtra coming (IV. 3. 99) which gave the same formation in case of allegiance to a Kshatriya (ruler)-name.: "गोत्रक्षत्रियाख्येभ्यो बहुलं वुञ् (४.३.८८) इत्येव सिद्धम्। न ह्यस्ति विशेषो वासुदेवशब्दाद्वुनो वा वुञो वा। तदेव रूपं स एव स्वरः। इदं तर्हि प्रयोजनं वासुदेवशब्दस्य पूर्वनिपातं वक्ष्यामीति। अथवा नैषा क्षत्रियाख्या। संज्ञैषा तत्रभवतः।" Patañjali here understands Pāṇini's IV. 3. 98 to refer to *bhakti* owed to these two as Kshatriyas (rulers) and not as deities. The cause of Patañjali's perplexity seems to be a confusion which arose by treating a Vārttika of Kātyāyana, viz., गोत्रक्षत्रियाख्येभ्यो बहुलं वुञ्, as a Sūtra of Pāṇini. As a matter of fact गोत्रक्षत्रियाख्येभ्यो बहुलं वुञ् is given as a Vārttika (No. 18) to Pāṇini, IV. 2. 104 (Kielhorn, p. 296). The same rule could not be both a Vārttika of Kātyāyana and a Sūtra of Pāṇini. It has already come as a Vārttika, and by treating it as a Vārttika the sense becomes clear. Kātyāyana completes Pāṇini by giving a general rule on allegiance owed to well-known Kshattriya rulers).