Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c13: Chapter VI: Education in the Time of Pāṇini

Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c13

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI: Education in the Time of Pāṇini

c13.2

**Education as revealed in the grammatical Sūtras of Paṇini, together with the works of Kātyāyana and Patañjali.** The account of education in the Sūtra period will not be complete without the consideration of the evidence of the grammatical literature as represented in the works of Pāṇiṅi and of his two famous commentators, Katyāyana and Patañjali. That evidence is indeed unique in its interest and importance. It may be further noted that, chronologically speaking, the entire Sūtra period may be roughly considered to lie between the time of Pāṇini with whom it begins and the time of Patañjali with whom it ends. Accordingly, some of the chief characteristics of the educational system and conditions of the period are reflected in the literature that grew round the grammar of Pāṇini. It may also be easily understood that, on account of the inevitable and vital connection that must exist between a grammatical work and the standing language and literature and the established forms and usages of speech upon which it is based, grammatical works must always be a fertile source of social and political history, abounding in references to contemporary and pre-existing institutions, ways of life, and conditions of culture.

c13.3.1

**Literature known to Pāṇini.** Pāṇini throws light on the literature of his times. Four classes of literature are distinguished. The first is that which is "*seen*" (*dṛishṭam*) or revealed, e.g. the Sāmaveda. Some of the "seers" of the Sāmaveda are also mentioned, viz. Vāmadeva [iv, 2, 7, and 8]. Kātyāyana and Patañjali add the names of Kali, Agni, Uśanas, and Aupagava. The second is that which is "enounced" [iv, 2, 63; iv, 3, 101 (*proktam*)]. To this class would belong the Veda or *Chhandas* enounced by Tittiri, Varatantu, Khaṇḍika, and Ukha¹ works by the Ṛishis like Kāśyapa and Kauśik; the *Chhandas* works of Śaunaka and others²; of Kaṭha and Charaka; of Kalāpī and Chhagalī; and of the *direct* pupils of Kalāpī¹ and Vaiśampāyana. In this class are also included such *Brāhmaṇa*² and *Kalpa* ³ works as are enounced by the ancient sages, thereby excluding, according to Kātyāyana and Patañjali, the works of later sages ⁴ like Yājñavalkya and Sulabha. Lastly, Pāṇini mentions as examples of this class of literature the *Bhikshu-sūtras* as enounced or originally propounded by Pārāśarya and Karmanda as well as the *Naṭa-sūtras* as propounded by their founders mentioned as Śilālin and Kṛiśāśva. The *Bhikshu-sūtra* means a collection of rules or precepts for mendicants, while the *Naṭa-sūtra* means a collection of rules for actors [iv, 3, 101–111]. The third class of literature distinguished by Pāṇini is that which is "discovered" and not handed down by tradition [ii, 4, 21;

c13.3.2

iv, 3, 115; vi, 2, 14 (*Upajñā*)]. As examples of this class the *Kāśikā* mentions the works of such original authors as Pāṇini, Kāśakṛishṇa, Āpiśali, and Vyāḍi. The fourth class of literature comprises the ordinary compositions of ordinary writers on any subject [iv, 3, 87 and 116]. As examples, Patañjali mentions the books of *Story* (*ākhyāyikā*) such as *Vāsavadattā*, *Sumanottarā*, *Bhaimarathī*, to which the *Kāśikā* adds *Urvaśī*. The *Kāśikā* mentions *mythological* works like *Saubhadra*, *Gaurimitra*, and *Yāyāta*. In iv, 3, 88 Pāṇini refers to works on such peculiar subjects as the child's cry (*Śiśukrandīya*) or the court of Yama (*Yamasabhīya*) to which the *Vārttika* adds the works bearing on the wars between gods and demons such as *Devāsura*, *Rākshosura*, and the *Kāśikā* adds the works called *Agnikāśyapīya*, *Śyenakapotīya*, *Indrajananīya* (also mentioned by Pāṇini) and *Pradyumnāgamanīya*. Patañjali further mentions under this class the *Kāvya* or poetical works of *Vararuchi* and the *Ślokas* known as *Jālūka* [iv, 3, 101 (3)]. Pāṇini also refers to *Ślokas* as eulogistic verses [iii, 1, 25] and to their author as *Ślokakāra* [ib., 2, 23]. There is also a reference to *Gāthās* [ib.], to a composer of *Mantras* (*Mantrakāra*), and to the author of Padapāṭha (*Padakāra*). Pāṇini also mentions a Mahābhārata [vi, 2, 38] and the followers of Vāsudeva and Arjuna [iv, 3, 98].

c13.3.3

Yudhishṭhira also is mentioned [viii, 3, 95], while Patañjali mentions Yudhishṭhira and Arjuna as elder and younger brothers respectively [ii, 2, 34]. Non-ṛishi families of Vṛishṇi and Kuru are also mentioned [iv, 1, 114], as members of which Patañjali instances Vāsudeva, Vāladeva, Nākula, Sāhadeva, and Bhaimasenya. In addition to the above four types of literature, Pāṇini mentions separately the literature of *Commentaries* [iv, 3, 66 (*Vyākhyāna*)], as examples of which Patañjali mentions the commentaries on *Nirukta* and *Vyākaraṇa* and also on *Kalpa* works such as *Agnishṭoma*, *Rājasūya*, and *Vājapeya*. Pāṇini refers to commentaries on Soma sacrifices (*kratu*) and other sacrifices (*yajña*), as examples of which Patañjali mentions *Pākayajñika*, *Nāvayajñika*, *Pāñchaudanika*, *Sāptaudanika*, *Śātaudanika* [iv, 3, 68]. Commentaries on sections of grammar alluded to by Pāṇini are mentioned by *Kāśikā* as *Saupa* (on case-affixes), *Tiṅga* (on verbal affixes) and *Kārta* (on *kṛit* affixes), also *Shātvanātvikam* and *Nātānatikam* [iv, 3, 66, 67]. Pāṇini [ib., 69] refers to commentaries on chapters (*adhyāyas*) of works of Ṛishis, as examples of which the *Kāśikā* mentions *Vāsishṭhika-adhyāya*, *Vaiśvāmitrika*. Pāṇini refers to commentaries on the verses or mantras on Puroḍāśa (sacred cake) as *Puroḍāśika* and *Pauroḍāśika*. He refers to the formations *Chhandasya* and *Chhāndasa* as commentaries on *Chhandas*.

c13.3.4

He refers to the commentaries called *Brāhmaṇika*, *Ārchika*, *Prāthamika*, *Ādhvarika*, *Pauraścharaṇika*, *Nāmika*, *Ākhyātika*, and *Nāmākhyātika*, as also to commentaries of which the *Kāśikā* gives the names as Aishṭika, Pāśuka, Chāturhotṛika, Pāñchahotṛika. Lastly, he refers to commentaries on certain classes of works belonging to the category called *Ṛigayanādi* which, according to *Kāśikā*, included a great variety of subjects such as Chhandobhāshā, Chhandovichiti, Nyāya, Vyākaraṇa, Nigama, Vāstuvidyā, Aṅgavidyā, Kshatravidyā, Upanishat, Śikshā, etc. [iv, 3, 703].

c13.4

¹ Patañjali mentions the works called Kāṭhaka, Kālāpaka, Maudaka, and Paippalādaka [iv, 3, 101 (3)].

c13.5

² As "others" the *Kāśikā* mentions Kaṭha, Śāṭha, Vājaśaneya, Sāṅgarava, Śārṅgarava, Sāṅpeya, Śākheya, Khāṇḍāyana, Skandha, Skanda, etc. The Śaunaka of this rule is taken by Goldstucker on the authority of Sāyaṇa to be the Ṛishi who is supposed to be the author of the second Maṇḍala of the Rigveda as we now have it. Accordingly, since this Maṇḍala is classified by Pāṇini under *prokta* (proclaimed) as distinguished from the *dṛishṭa*, literature, it is to be regarded in Goldstucker's opinion as being later in Pāṇini's view than the other Maṇḍalas. Goldstucker further argues that the very first hymn of the second Maṇḍala fully confirms this impression, for, by speaking of Hotṛi, Potṛi, Neshtṛi, Agnīdhra, Praśāstṛi, Adhvaryu, and Brahman priests, it certainly betrays a very advanced development of sacrificial and artificial rites. According to the *Kāśikā*, Śaunaka is the reputed author of the *Ṛik-prātiśākhya* which is thus considered to be anterior to Pāṇini.

c13.6

¹ According to the *Kāśikā*, there are four such pupils of Kalāpī, viz. Haridru, Chhagalī, Tumburu, and Ulapa, while there are *nine* of Vaiśampāyana, viz. Ālambi, Palaṅga, Kamala, Ṛichāva, Āruṇi, Tāṇḍya, Śyāmāyana, Katha, and Kalāpī.

c13.7

² E.g. those of Bhāllava, Śāṭyāyana, and Aitareya [*Kāśikā*].

c13.8

³ E.g. those of Paiṅga and Aruṇaparāja [ib.]. Patañjali also mentions *Āsuriya Kalpa* [iv, 1, 19 (2)].

c13.9

⁴ The *Kāśikā* adds the *Kalpa* work of Aśmaratha.

c13.10

We thus see that Pāṇini was acquainted with a wide range of subjects, religious and secular. He knew the *Ṛigveda* [vi, 3, 55, 133; vii, 4, 39] and refers to its *Pada* [vi, 1, 115; vii, 1, 57; viii, 1, 18, etc.] and *Krama pāṭha* [iv, 2, 61], while the division into Adhyāyas and Anuvākas was also known [v, 2, 60]. He also uses the word *Chhanda* in the sense of Metre [viii, 3, 94]. He knew the *Sāmaveda* [i, 2, 34; iv, 2, 7, and 60; v, 2, 59; etc.]. He knew also of a Yajurveda [ii, 4, 4; iv, 2, 60; v, 4, 77; vi, 1, 117; vii, 4, 38; viii, 3, 104; etc.]. All the three Vedas are referred to in one Sūtra [iv, 3, 129] together with the Schools or Charaṇas based thereon. The *Śākala Śākhā* of the Rigveda is also referred to [ib., 128]. Regarding his knowledge of the *Atharvaveda*, there is no positive evidence as the word occurs only in the Gaṇas to the Sūtras or in the Vārttikas [see iv, 2, 38 and 63; iv, 3, 133; etc.]. Nor do we know definitely whether the White Yajurveda was known to him, because it was left to a Vārttika [to iv, 3, 105] to refer to its author Yājñavalkya as a comparatively later Ṛishi (probably a contemporary of Pāṇini, as I interpret the Vārttika) than those contemplated in the said Sūtra. It is also uncertain whether Pāṇini knew the *Āraṇyakas* on account of his rather significant omission to refer to that meaning in explaining the formation, *Āraṇyaka* [iv, 2, 129]. The omission was left to be supplied by Kātyāyana. On this supposition the *Upanishads*, as we have them now, were not probably known to him because these were developed out of the *Āraṇyakas*. Pāṇini mentions the word *Upanishad* only once and that probably in the sense of a secret [i, 4, 79] (though the *Bālamanoramā* takes it to mean the literary work, *Vedāntabhāga*), but the word occurs twice in the Gaṇas [iv, 3, 73 (in the sense of a literary work) and iv, 4, 12]. There is, however, no doubt that he knew of the *Brāhmaṇas* [ii, 3, 60] and *Kalpa* works and also of *Sūtras* [iv, 2, 65] (which are interpreted to mean grammatical Sūtras by Kātyāyana and Patañjali). He definitely mentions *Brāhmaṇa* works of thirty and forty *adhyāyas* or chapters [v, 1, 162]. Lastly, he refers to works which are similar to the *Brāhmaṇas* and called *Anu-Brāhmaṇas* [iv, 2, 63], while there was something like the Indexing of the Mantras for convenient reference at the time of sacrificial performances [iv, 4, 125-7] by different classes of priests which are also known to Pāṇini [v, 1, 135 and 136].

c13.11

The range of secular literature in Pāṇini's times seems to have been remarkably wide and varied, considering that he discusses grammatical formations connected with such subjects as those bearing upon the rules and practices of actors and mendicants, and upon the treatment of children's cries, or the seasons [iv, 2, 64],¹ or fables and stories [ib., 102].

c13.12

¹ The growth of such a varied profane literature as is indicated by these casual references inclines one to doubt the correctness of the supposition that such ancient religious texts as the Atharvaveda, the Āraṇyakas, the Upanishads, the Vājasaneyi Saṁhitā, or the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa were unknown to Pāṇini. The matter requires to be carefully considered by more competent scholars.

c13.13

**Literature known to Kātyāyana and Patañjali.** We notice a considerable advancement of learning in the subsequent ages of Kātyāyana and Patañjali. The advancement is shown in regard to both depth and width, i.e. in the growth of the literature bearing on the old traditional subjects and the growth of *new* subjects in the process of time. We have already cited above the evidence proving it. But there is some further evidence to be considered in that connection. For instance, there is to be noticed a considerable growth of grammatical literature. Pāṇini mentions among his predecessors Āpiśali, Kāśyapa, Gārgya, Gālava, Chākravarmaṇa, Bhāradvāja, Śākaṭāyana, Śākalya, Senaka, Sphoṭāyana, and also those authors designated by the collective appellation of eastern [ii, 4, 60; iii, 4, 18; iv, 1, 17, 43, 160, etc.] and northern grammarians [iii, 4, 19; iv, 1, 130, 157; etc.]. To this list of names Patañjali makes his own additions. In one place he mentions the four landmarks in the history of grammar, viz. those represented by the schools of the four Āchāryas, Āpiśala—Pāṇini—Vyāḍi—Gautama [vi, 2, 36], the order of the mention being, according to a Sūtra [the *Vārttikas* to ii, 2, 34], that of chronology. He mentions also grammarians of the School of the Bhāradvājīyas [iii, 1, 89 (1); iv, 1, 79 (1); vi, 4, 47 (1); ib., 155 (1)], and Saunāgas [ii, 2, 18 (1-4); vi, 3, 44 (1)], as also Kuṇaravāḍava [vii, 3, 1 (6)], Sauryabhāgavat [viii, 2, 106 (3)], and Kuṇi [Kaiyyaṭa's gloss on i, 1, 75]. There is also an indefinite number of grammarians designated under the words "some" and "others" (*Kechit* and *Apare*) [see Goldstucker's *Pāṇini* for these references]. There is also a reference to those who study or understand the Vārttikasūtra and Saṁgrahasūtra.¹ Besides grammar, there is a number of other secular subjects mentioned. A person well-versed in the science of (augury from observing) crows is called *Vāyasavidyika*. Similarly, there are references to experts in sciences bearing upon cows (Gaulakshaṇika) and horses (Āśvalakshaṇika), upon interpretation of signs (Lākshaṇika), upon dyes of lac (Lākshika ?). There is a reference to a subject called *Anusū* (the meaning of which I cannot ascertain). Next we have references to *Aṅgavidyā* (knowledge of lucky or unlucky marks on the body), *Kshatravidyā* (military science or *Dhanurvidyā*, the science of the bow, archery) and *Dharmavidyā* (Law). Patañjali distinguishes between *Ākhyānas* (historical stories), e.g. those connected with Yavakrīta, Priyaṅgu, Yayāti, and *Ākhyāyikās* (works of fiction), e.g. those connected with Vāsavadattā or Sumanottarā, and refers to *Itihāsa* and *Purāṇa* [iv, 2, 60]. A Vārttika mentions Vyāsa whose son is named Śuka by Patañjali [iv, 1, 97]. The story of Kaṁsa being killed by Kṛishṇa is referred to by Patañjali as being very popular [iii, 1, 26 (6)].

c13.14

¹ There was indeed a considerable growth of Vārttika literature, of which we may distinguish three distinct and different strata: (1) The *Kārikās* or Sloka-vārttikas, (2) *Traditional* Vārttikas which end in the expression "it is remembered", and (3) *Opposition*-Vārttikas which dictate a rule in the style of the Sūtras.

c13.15

**Popular Literature.** Patañjali's was indeed an age of popular literature, of Ākhyānas, Ākhyāyikās, Itihāsas, Purāṇas, of recitations from the Epics of the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa [Vālmīki being mentioned in the earlier *Taittirīya Prātiśākhya* (v, 36)], of homely slokas, of vocal and instrumental musicians, of actors and the like. The spread of popular education due to this growth of a vast and varied popular literature may be inferred from one of the typical illustrations of Patañjali (in his gloss to Vārttika on ii, 4, 56). He there describes a dialogue between a grammarian and a coachman in which the latter gets the better of the former in regard to the accuracy of a grammatical formation. An extract from the dialogue will be interesting: "A certain grammarian asked, 'Who is the *Pravetā* (driver) of this chariot?' The Sūta (charioteer) answered: 'Sire! I am the *Prājitā*.' The learned grammarian said: 'This word (Prājitā) is grammatically incorrect.' The Sūta retorted: 'The fool knows the rule (of Pāṇini) but not the *ishṭi* of the teachers.' The grammarian answered: 'Oh! how troubled are we by this *opposite* of a Sūta [*Duruta* = Dur + ve (weave) + kta = ill-woven, to which the grammarian thinks Sūta is a cognate].' This answer provokes a stronger retort from the coachman who says: 'You think that *Sūta* is derived from the root *ve*, whereas it is really derived from the root *sū*, to propel. If, however, you wish to use a correct term of contempt for me you must use the form *Duhsūta*.'"

c13.16

**Rules of Education.** We shall now consider the evidence regarding the conditions and regulations of education. The ceremony of initiation is referred to as Āchārya-karaṇa [i, 3, 36] and *Upanayana*. The sense of the latter term, according to Pāṇini, is that the teacher, by bringing, according to religious rules, the pupil unto himself, brings himself up as a teacher through instruction, whence the expression, *Māṇavakaṁ Upanayate*. The *Bālamanoramā* cites an interesting verse defining an Āchārya as one who, receiving unto himself (*upanīya*) a pupil, teaches him the Veda together with the Kalpas and Rahasyas.

c13.17

**Relations between Teacher and Pupil.** Next, we have certain expressions indicative of the relations between the teacher and pupil. The same affix is applied to their relationships as to that of blood [iv, 3, 77 and vi, 3, 23]. The pupil is called a *Chhātra* [iv, 4, 62] because, as explained by Patañjali, the preceptor is like an umbrella sheltering the pupil or covering his defects, or the pupil is like an umbrella maintaining his preceptor. The pupil must secure the affection of his teacher for the sake of his own welfare both here and hereafter [Patañjali on iii, 1, 26 (15)].

c13.18

**Marks of Pupilage.** All the well-known marks of pupilage are known to Pāṇini. The pupil is to live with his teacher (*antevāsī*) but there is also a reference to day-scholars, the common mark of both classes of pupils being the carrying of the *daṇḍa* or staff [iv, 3, 130]. Another mark of the pupil is the bowl in his hand [i, 4, 84 (2)—*Kamaṇḍalu-pāṇiṁ chhatraṁ*]. The most important mark of the pupil was his going on begging rounds to approved householders for food and other necessaries [Patañjali on i, 1, 56 (1)]. There were several pupils thus serving their common teacher, as indicated by the special term applied to the boarder-pupils of the same school [iv, 3, 107 (*satīrthya*)]. Special *vratas* or vows of the Brahmachārin are also referred to [v, 1, 94] as well as the ceremony of Anupravachana [v, 1, 111].

c13.19

**School Regulations.** We have also a glimpse into some of the regulations of the school. The Āchārya is stated by Patañjali to sit with sacred grass in his hand at a pure moment with his face towards the east and then commence teaching with great care [i, 1, 1 (7)]. The pupils reciprocated the treatment of their teacher. There is a reference to studious pupils working night and day [Patañjali on ii, 4, 32]. Some, when they could not get oil for their lamps, would even burn dried cow-dung and study by themselves in an isolated corner by the light thereof, so zealous were they [Patañjali on iii, 1, 26 (2)]. There is also a reference to prescribed times and places of study [iv, 3, 71].

c13.20

**Unworthy Pupils.** Unworthy pupils and teachers were not unknown. Some pupils found study too painful and difficult and abstained. Sometimes the rough manners of a teacher might also repel them [i, 4, 26, together with Patañjali's gloss]. Sometimes a pupil would not have the courage to face his teacher who would rebuke and dismiss him for some offence committed [ib., 28]. Or a pupil would not have the patience to complete his full period of studentship and leave it prematurely for the life of ease of the householder without his teacher's permission or the performance of the concluding purificatory bath. For such a person the standing contemptuous epithet was *Khaṭvārūḍha*, i.e. one who begins sleeping on a cot without being entitled to it by a completed studentship when he ought to sleep on the ground [ii, 1, 26, with Patañjali's gloss]. Sometimes a pupil would change teachers and schools too frequently, in which case the contemptuous epithet, *Tīrthakāka*, would be applied to him, because he is as fickle as a crow that does not stop long at a place of pilgrimage [ii, 1, 41, with Patañjali's gloss]. Other contemptuous epithets are contemplated in another Sūtra of Pāṇini [vi, 2, 69] with reference to an *antevāsin* and a *māṇava* when they become pupils for reprehensible motives. As examples the *Kāśikā* mentions the term *Kumārī-Dākshāḥ*, which means those who study the works, or make themselves pupils, of Daksha for the sake of girls, and also the term *Bhikshā-māṇava* which applies to a person entering upon studentship for the sake of the proceeds from begging it brings. Similar terms mentioned by Patañjali are *Odana-Pāṇinīyāḥ*, i.e. those who become pupils or study the work of Pāṇini only for the sake of securing boiled rice, *Ghṛita-Raudhīyas* (the Raudhīyas desirous of *ghṛita*), and *Kambala-Chārāyaṇīyas* (the Chārāyaṇīyas desirous of blankets) [see Patañjali on Vārttika 6 to i, 1, 73 and *Kāśikā* on vi, 2, 69]. Thus there was not always the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, and deviations from the ideal were so common or general that special epithets were evolved requiring grammatical explanations for their formation. Be it, however, considered that students pursuing studies for worldly advantages accruing therefrom earned a legitimate social opprobrium, and this in a manner testifies to the strict insistence upon the true ideals of studentship. Nowadays most persons acquire knowledge because it brings *odana*, *ghṛita*, and *kambala* but escapes the application of epithets expressive of social censure.

c13.21

‘Yaujana-Śatika.’ The *Bṛihadāraṇyaka Upanishad* (see *ante*) mentions a famous teacher in the land of the Madras to whom came pupils from distant countries. We have an interesting confirmation of this evidence regarding the existence of such far-famed teachers in the *Mahābhāshya* [v, 1, 74 (2)] which explains the grammatical formation *Yaujana-śatika* as the designation applied to a *guru* whom pupils seek from distances of hundreds of miles (*yojanaśatādabhigamanamarhati*).

c13.22

‘Varṇī.’ Pāṇini gives evidence of the fact that studentship was open to all the three twice-born castes in the grammatical formation *Varṇī* which is explained as a general term for a Brahmachārī [v, 2, 134].

c13.23

**Gifts.** Patañjali mentions the gift of cows to the teacher [i, 4, 32].

c13.24

**Father as Teacher.** He refers to a pupil having his father as his teacher [i, 4, 51].

c13.25

**Terms for Teachers.** Four terms are used to indicate the teacher, viz. *Āchārya*, *Guru*, *Śikshaka*, and *Upādhyāya*. It may be noted that the term *Āchārya* is reserved by Patañjali for application to the highest type of teacher, to an original thinker and master like Pāṇini, while the other three terms he uses with reference to the ordinary teachers.

c13.26

**Methods of Study.** There is some evidence available regarding the methods of study and instruction. These were, of course, necessarily determined by the character of the curriculum. Where only Vedic texts were the subject of study, rote-learning was the suitable method. It is this method of study that Pāṇini refers to in his Sūtra—*Śrotriyaśchhandodhīte* [v, 2, 84], which means that the Śrotriya is he who learns by heart the Chhandas or Veda. Patañjali refers to "reading aloud" and "reading low" [ii, 1, 2 (7)]. Examinations in the recitation of texts seem to be contemplated in two Sūtras of Pāṇini [iv, 4, 63 and 64] upon which Patañjali unfortunately does not comment, so that we have to depend upon the *Kāśikā* for information on the point. The examinee who made a single mistake in the pronunciation of sacred texts¹ was designated *Aikānyika*, i.e. pupil of one error. We have similar epithets based on the number of lapses thus committed which might be even twelve, thirteen, and fourteen. These epithets which became so common and important as to deserve the notice of Pāṇini indicate that there were different grades or classes according to which the examinees were ranked in the order of merit on the results of their oral examination. In this connection we may also refer to a Sūtra [v, 1, 58] in which the practice of learning by repetition seems to be alluded to. Thus *Pañchakodhītaḥ* means "what is studied five times" [*Kāśikā*].

c13.27

¹ Yasyādhyayane niyuktasya parīkshākāle pāṭhataḥ skhalitamapapāṭharūpamekaṁ jātaṁ sa uchyate Aikānyika iti *Kāśikā*. Bhaṭṭojidīkshita explains the mistake as *viparītochchāraṇarūpam*, i.e. as one of pronunciation.

c13.28

But rote-learning was not of course the only method of study. There were indeed various subjects of study in the learning of which memory played a far less important part than understanding. Pāṇini's grammar was itself one of the most conspicuous of such subjects, demanding a most sustained exercise of the reader's reasoning faculty in comprehending the orderly evolution of a perfectly scientific system on the basis of a combined application of approved deductive and inductive methods. Thus the methods of both mechanical and critical study are explicitly referred to by Pāṇini in his Sūtra [iv, 2, 59]—*Tadadhīte tadveda* upon which the gloss of Patañjali is equally explicit. The term *adhīte* in the Sūtra refers to studies which depend upon memory, i.e. texts which have to be learnt by heart, while the other term, *veda*, applies to studies depending upon understanding Patañjali distinguishes a pupil who simply commits to memory texts, without understanding their meaning (*saṃpāṭhaṃ paṭhati*), from one who elects studies that involve the exercise of intelligence. The *Bālamanoramā* (a commentary on Bhattoji-dīkshita's *Siddhāntakaumudī*) defines the technical term *adhyayāna* as used by Pāṇini in the sense of the repetition by the pupil of the syllables in the order in which they issue from the lips of his teacher, while the term *vedanam* is explained as the knowledge of the meaning of the words heard.¹

c13.29

¹ Gurumukhādaksharānupurvīgrahaṇamadhyayanam | Śabdārthajñānaṁ vedanam |

c13.30

The currency of the two methods of study in times anterior to Pāṇini may be taken for granted. This is indeed proved by the very fact that it has formed the subject-matter of a Pāṇinean Sūtra. We are not, therefore, suprised at the emphatic protest of Yāska (already mentioned) against the method of rote-learning as generally applied to Veda-study. He strongly condemns those who would make the Vedic texts a mere matter of memory, not of an intelligent and critical study. In the words of Yāska [*Nirukta*, i, 18]: "The person who is able only to recite the Veda (*adhītya*) but does not understand its meaning is like a post or a mere load-bearer; but he who understands the meaning will attain to all good here and hereafter, being purged of sins by knowledge. For the words that are simply memorized and not understood will merely sound when uttered, and not enlighten, just as wood, be it never so dry, will not blaze if it is put into what is not fire." Thus, in Yāska's opinion, the words of the Vedic texts were not more important than their meaning and hence the Vedas should be treated to both mechanical and rational methods of study. Yāska has also sought to discharge the responsibility of his opinions by composing a work which contributes towards a comprehension of the meanings of Vedic texts as distinguished from their proper pronunciation which is the exclusive objective of the Prātiśākhya literature. It may be also supposed that this spirit of reaction against the excessive dominance of mechanical methods of study to which we owe the preservation of the sacred texts was due to the intellectual tendencies of the age towards critical thinking and philosophical speculation which culminated in the Upanishads and Āraṇyakas.

c13.31

**Different Classes of Literary Men.** Pāṇini acquaints us with different classes of literary men. These may be inferred from the different classes of literature mentioned in his Sūtras which have been already noticed. At their head is the Ṛishi whose literary work, as we have already seen, is not created or composed ("*kṛita*") but "seen", revealed, inspired. We have already noticed the names of some of the Ṛishis mentioned by Pāṇini. To these we may add the names of Praskaṇva, Maṇḍūka, and Hariśchandra [vi, 1, 153; iv, 1, 19]. The manner of the mention [e.g. iv, 3, 105] shows that the age of the Ṛishis was long gone. Pāṇini has to take note of the distinction between *ārsha* and *anārsha* (non-ṛishi) literature [i, 1, 16]. We have some Sūtras explaining formations that only apply to non-Ṛishis [e.g. iv, 1, 104 (*anṛishi*)]. Next comes the promulgator of original works. The works thus promulgated ("*prokta*" and not *dṛishṭa* or revealed) might be Chhandas, Brāhmaṇa, and Kalpa works. We have already noticed the authors of these three different classes of religious literature as mentioned by Pāṇini. Some of them might be *Ṛishis* [iv, 3, 103]. From the manner of Pāṇini's mention it is clear that the age of these promulgators was long past [iv, 3, 105], though there were still some later representatives of the class as noticed by Kātyāyana, viz. Yājñavalkya and Sulabha. The original works promulgated might also be in the domain of secular learning. Pāṇini refers to the originators of literature bearing upon ascetics (*bhikshus*) and actors (*naṭas*), as we have already seen. The third type of men of letters is the discoverer of original systems, who brings to light *new* knowledge as distinguished from the knowledge that is handed down [iv, 3, 115]. The fourth type was the ordinary author of ordinary works (which were neither *dṛishṭa*, nor *prokta*, but *kṛita*). Kātyāyana mentions the formation *Śāstrakṛit* [Vārttika to iii, 1, 85]. The fifth type was the commentator [see *ante* for these references]. Thus Pāṇini practically refers to all possible varieties of literature and literary men that would all be connected with one or other of the following, viz. (*a*) *inspired* literature, (*b*) *original* works connected with This page is blank and contains no printed text to transcribe.

c13.32

BHARHUT : A HERMITAGE SCENE [No. 3]

c13.33

*traditional literature*, sacred and profane, (*c*) *original works* embodying *new* knowledge, (*d*) *commentaries*, (*e*) *ordinary* compositions. Besides these classes of authors, Pāṇini refers also to thinkers and teachers who might not be the authors of actual works themselves. Three different types of philosophical thinkers are distinguished, viz. (1) the *Āstika*, who believes in the life after death, (2) the *Nāstika*, who has no such belief, and (3) the *Daishtika*, a rationalist (according to the *Kāśika*) or a fatalist, a predestinarian (according to Bhattojidīkshita [iv, 4, 60]). There are also, two other references to the prevalence of similar beliefs [v, 2, 92; vi, 1, 49]. Besides thinkers and philosophers, Pāṇini mentions teachers of the first rank who, though not themselves famous for any works of their own, were famous for the works of their pupils. Kalāpa and Vaiśampāyana were teachers of this type whose discourses were so fruitful that they gave rise to different schools of thought, all within the domain of the subject-matter of those discourses. Each of the several pupils of those great instructors became the founder of an independent system, so vital and varied were the seeds of thought implanted in their minds [iv, 3, 104]. In this connection we may also refer to the *Brahmavādins* who, according to Kātyāyana [Vārttika 2 on iii, 2, 78], discoursed on sacred texts, though they might not themselves be authors of independent works.

c13.34

**Classes of Ascetics.** There were also other educators of thought in the country. Pāṇini refers to the class of *Parivrājakas* or religious mendicants of the last Āśrama or fourth stage of life who were also called *Maskariṇaḥ* [vi, 1, 154]. They were so called because, as explained by Patañjali, they preached thus to the people: "Perform ye no works (i.e. sacrifices): seek ye peace as the highest end." Thus these wandering preachers, renouncing the world, went about the country teaching doctrines which preferred the pursuit of inner peace as being more religious than the disquieting performance of external ceremonies. Pāṇini alludes to two classes of ascetics [iv, 4, 73], viz. those called *Āraṇyakas* who, according to the rules of their order, must dwell at least two miles away from human habitations and those called *Naikaṭika* bhikshus who are permitted to live in the vicinity of society [*Kāśika*; but, according to the *Bālamanoramā*, the *Naikaṭikas* do so in violation of rules].

c13.35

Thus the spread of learning was being promoted by the co-operation of various agencies, by books and men, by literature and instruction, by authors and teachers, by regular training and occasional discourses.

c13.36

**Variety of Educational Institutions.** Pāṇini indicates the variety of institutions in the country through which its learning and culture were promoted. There were firstly, of course, the schools proper of the residential type where the householder-teacher would regulate the life and studies of a number of boarder-pupils he could conveniently manage. But, as has been already explained in some of the earlier chapters, the precise character of the work of these schools cannot be properly appreciated without a reference to their social and cultural background. We must view them not by themselves as isolated institutions out of touch with the larger life of the community but as parts of the entire organization of learning and culture which the country developed. That organization was made up of several typically Indian institutions which were known as *Kula*, *Gotra*, *Charaṇa*, and *Parishad*. We have already dealt with the distinctive character, scope, and functions of these institutions and are here concerned only with what we may know of them from the Pāṇinean literature. It is, however, to be noted once again that these institutions are primarily concerned and connected with the social life of the community, but they have certain important cultural and educational aspects which cannot be ignored.

c13.37

**‘Gotra.’** The *Gotra* may be defined as a system of relations based upon community of ancestors. In the earlier stages of the history of the institution, the joint-membership in any given *Gotra* seems to have been determined less on the grounds of mere physical descent than on those of spiritual connection and inheritance. The Vedic mantras, religious traditions, and sacrificial customs which came to be associated with the name of a particular Ṛishi became the property of the *Gotra* in later times. Its physical aspects were strengthened by the connected ceremony of the *pravara* by which Agni had to be invoked under the names of three or five ancestors. Thus a knowledge of ancestors descended from generation to generation and helped to impart a certain degree of stability or definiteness to the genealogical relations of various families. Pāṇini has quite a number of references to the *Gotra* [ii, 4, 58–61, 63–70; iv, 1, 78, 79, 89–94, 98–112, 162–7; iv, 2, 111; iv, 3, 80 and 126]. They give numerous well-known Gotra-names, e.g. Paila, Taulvali, Yāska, Atri, Bhṛigu, Kutsa, Vasishṭha, Gotama, Aṅgiras, Tika, Kitava, Āgastya, Kauṇḍinya, Kuñja, Harita, Śaradvat, Śunaka, Darbha, Droṇa, Parvata.

c13.38

Jīvanta, Garga, Madhu, Babhru, Kapi, Bodha (an Āṅgirasa), Vataṇḍa, Aśva, Śiva, Kaṇva. They also give us a glimpse of the system of social organization. It was made up of patriarchal families. Three forms of surnames are mentioned by Pāṇini as denoting the Gotra or family. The first was the patronymic by which the head of the united family, the patriarch, was known. Thus Garga or Gargāchārya was the recognized head of the united family of all the Gargas who may be more than a hundred. The second form of the surname was applied to his eldest son and heir who was called Gārgi, while the third form was applied to his grandsons, called Gārgyas. On the death of the patriarch his eldest son, Gārgi was to be called Garga, and his eldest grandson Gārgi, while the great-grandsons, who were called Gārgāyaṇas, were now to be called Gārgyas. It may be also noted that on the death of the patriarch, the other sons designated *youths* (*yuvan*) were subordinate to his authority. On the failure of a direct descendant in the line, the paterfamilias passed on to a collateral relation, but a position of superiority attached to the oldest surviving member, be he an uncle of the surviving representative of the Gotra or the elder brother of his grandfather. Pāṇini also notices the term *Kula* [iv, 1, 79 and 139], which is explained by the commentators to be the non-famous Gotras or families, e.g. Puṇika, Bhuṇika, Mukhara as instanced by *Kāśikā* and Gārgya, Vaida, and Āṅgas as instanced by Patañjali [gloss on ii, 4, 64].

c13.39

‘**Charaṇas**.’ These *Gotras* or close corporations of culture could not, however, remain as such for ever. The special body of knowledge, of traditions, doctrines, and customs which was vested in each as its exclusive property could not long continue in its necessary narrowness, but had to be thrown open to the community in the interests of its own growth and of public instruction. Thus the *Gotras* came to be federated together for their common good. Out of this federation arose that peculiar synthesis or institution known as the *Charaṇa*. Members of different *Gotras* with their particular culture-traditions now united in the *Charaṇas* to widen their culture. The *Gotra* became more and more indicative of the blood-relationship, while the *Charaṇa* indicated a spiritual relationship, an ideal fellowship. Every pupil had thus a double relationship, what Pāṇini calls *Vidyā-yoni-sambandha*, i.e. relationship in learning and blood. As every person was bound to seek an *Āchārya* for instruction, he was considered to be his descendant in a spiritual sense [i, 3, 36 (*āchāryakaraṇa*)].

c13.40

The *Charaṇas* in Pāṇini’s times had a much wider basis than before. Two elements are distinguished in that basis by Kātyāyana [Vārttika, 11, to iv, 2, 120], viz. (1) *Āmnāya*, i.e. the sacred texts handed down by repetition, and (2) *Dharma*, i.e. the laws peculiar to the Charaṇa. Thus each *Charaṇa* had its own particular set of traditional texts and customs or practical usages and regulations [see also iv, 1, 63].

c13.41

**Variety of 'Charaṇas'.** Thus the *Charaṇas*, from their very constitution, promoted a considerable degree of specialization. The specialization was also necessarily carried in a double direction, theoretical and practical. Pāṇini thus refers to a wide variety of such special schools.

c13.42

Schools based on different Vedic texts are mentioned. Thus *Śākala* or *Śākalaka* is the name of the *Saṃgha* or *Charaṇa* for the study of the *Śākala Śākhā* or recension of the *Rigveda* [iv, 3, 128]. Pāṇini also refers to the schools of Kaṭha, Charaka, and Kalāpin [ib. 107, 108], to which Patañjali adds Kauthuma [gloss on ii, 4, 3], Maudaka, and Paippalādaka [iv, 3, 120 (11)]. According to Patañjali, the Kāṭhaka and Kālāpaka recensions were very popular, being taught in every village. *Paippalādaka* refers to a recension of the Atharvaveda, while the other terms are connected with the *Śākhās* of the Yajurveda. Kātyāyana refers to the School of the *Ātharvaṇas* [Vārttika 2 to iv, 3 (131)]. We may also note in this connection the different Vedic *Charaṇas* founded by each of the *four* immediate pupils of Kalāpī and of the *nine* of Vaiśampāyana as indicated by Pāṇini [iv, 3, 104].

c13.43

**Special Schools.** Specialization was also achieved in the domain of priestly literature and practices. Pāṇini mentions the special schools of the *Chhāndoga* priests (who sang in metre, i.e. the Udgātṛi priests) and also of the *Ukthikas* [who recited certain verses called *Ukthas* to be distinguished from *Sāman* verses which are chanted and from Yajus verses which are muttered sacrificial formulas (Monier Williams)]. There are also mentioned the schools of the Yājñikas and Bahvṛichas (i.e. priests connected with the Yajurveda and Rigveda, the latter being the Hotṛi priests who represent the Rigveda in sacrificial ceremonies). The Schools of these classes of priests were the custodians of the texts and rules which they had to study to qualify themselves for their work [iv, 3, 129].

c13.44

There was also progress of specialization in other departments of knowledge not directly connected with religion. Pāṇini refers to the School of the *Naṭas*. The formation *Nāṭyam* connotes the literature and practices bearing on the dramatic art [ib.]. Patañjali mentions specialists in instrumental music like the *Mārdaṅgika* [iv, 4, 55]. Pāṇini mentions the specialist in the art of story-telling [*Kāthika*, iv, 4, 102]. Patañjali mentions specialists like the *Aitihāsika* and *Paurāṇika* [iv, 2, 60], the *Vaiyākaraṇa*, and *Mīmāṁsaka* [gloss on ii, 2, 29]. He mentions grammarians of the school of Śākalya [iv, 1, 18 (1)]. He also refers to military schools where the science of the bow was taught [*Dhanushi śikshate*, i, 3, 21 (3)]. It may be noted that he mentions fight with cavalry (*aśvairyuddham*) and with weapons (*asiviryuddham*) [v, 1, 59 (4)].

c13.45

‘**Parishads.**’ Lastly, we have also references to the *Parishads*. We have already examined in an earlier chapter their constitution, composition, and functions. They were of the nature of an executive council regulating the relations between different *Charaṇas* and giving authoritative and binding decisions on the doubtful points in the general social laws. Pāṇini refers to the Institution in two Sūtras [iv, 4, 44 and 101]. In the one, the formation *Pārishadya* is explained as one who attends a meeting, and therefore is a member of the *Parishad*, and in the other, the formation *Pārishada* is explained as one who is clever at debates in the meetings of the *Parishad* [*Parishadi sādhu*]. The term *Sabhya* was used to signify the specialist in oratory [iv, 4, 105].

c13.46

**Women and Education.** Women were not denied education. The Vārttika on iv, 1, 48 makes this quite clear. Women teachers, not their wives, are called *Upādhyāyī* or *Upādhyāyā*, *Āchāryā*. Bhattojidīkshita¹ explains these terms to mean ladies who are themselves teachers, while the *Bālamonoramā* quotes an interesting old verse to show that in earlier times there were women who were well versed in Vedic literature and were called *Brahmavādinīs*.² Women-students of Vedic Śākhās are referred to by Pāṇini [iv, 1, 63]. Thus *Kaṭhī* means the female student of the Kaṭha *Śākhā*; *Bahvṛichī* means the student who studies many hymns, i.e. the Rigveda [*Bālamonoramā* and *Kāśikā*]. Women seem also to have been admitted to military training, as indicated by the formation, *Śāktikī*, mentioned by Patañjali [iv, 1, 15 (6)], which means a female spear-bearer, and in this connection we may indeed refer to the Amazonian bodyguard of armed women which Megasthenes noticed in the palace of the emperor, Chandragupta Maurya.

c13.47

¹ Yātu svayamevādhyāpikā.

c13.48

² Yugāntare Brahmavādinyaḥ striyaḥ santi tadvishaye idam | Purā yugeshu nārīṇāṁ mauñjībandhanamishyate | Adhyāpanaṁcha Vedānāṁ Sāvitrī vachanaṁ tathā || iti smaraṇāt | This shows that the women were admitted to the discipline of *brahmacharya* as indicated by the binding of the muñja girdle and to the studies of the Vedas and repetition of the Sāvitrī mantra, so that they would afterwards be qualified teachers.

Linked texts (4)