English
ty&yana was a pupil of Afivalllyana, or that Patanjali lived immediately after Ed.tyd.yana, but the smallest interval which we can admit between every two of these names is that be- tween teacher and pupil, an interval as large as that between father and son, or rather larger. The ques- tion now arises : Can the date of any one of these authors be fixed chronologically ? Before we attempt to answer this question, it will be necessary to establish the identity of Ed.tyd.yana * ^RTBifti: ch. w. > <tidii41<ld w., |rm41<)^ ch. • W^W or HT^? 240 yARARUGHX. and Yararuchi. K&tyfljaDa was the author of the Sarvd^nukramani, and the s^me work is quoted as the Sarv&nukramani of Vararuchi \ the compiler of the doctrmes of l^aunaka. In Professor Wilson's Cata- logue of the Mackenzie Collection, a Pr&ti^hya is ascribed to Vararuchi, and this can hardly be anything else but the Mddhyandina-pr4ti^khya of Kd.tyd.yana. Hemachandra in his Dictionary givea Vararuchi as a synonyme of E&tyd.yana without any further com- ment, just as he gives l§&ld.turiya as a synonyme of P&nini. Let us now consider the information which we re- ceive about K&tyftyana Vararuchi from Brahmanic sources. Somadevabhatta of Kashmir collected the popular stories current in his time, and published them towards the beginning of the twelfth century under the title of Kathd.-sarit-sd.gara', the Ocean of the Rivers of Stories. Here we read that Kd.tyd.yana ^ MS. K L H. 5.76. contains a commentary on the Rig-veda, where a passage from the Sarr&nukramani is quoted as ^PT an^*lfii4<dl|i<in?i^<0<3*fc^fii*l M This commentary of Atmananda seems anterior to Sayana. In the introduction different works and commentaries, connected with the Veda are quoted, but Madhava and Sayana are nerer mentioned. We find the Skandabh­a, and commentators such as XJdgitha-bhaskara, mentioned (4$|li4WH(^l| M|lfe|4ir<<^ii'lWl^<lRpT:) by Atm&nanda, and the same works were known also to Devar&- jayijiran. Deyarftjayajvao, however, quotes, not only Skanda- aT&min and Bhatfa^bhclskara-mi^ray but also Mfidhava. He there- fore was later than M&dhava. Skandasv&min, and Bhaskara, on the conjtrary, were anterior to M&dhayay being quoted in his com- mentary. Atm&nanda, though not quoted by Mldhava, seems anteri<r to MSdhavay and the authorities which he quotes are such as &iunaka, Yedamitra (^alyjEt),. the BphaddevatS, Yislugiu- dharmottara, and Y&ska. * Katha-sarit-sagara, edited by Dr. Heimann Broekhaus. Leip- sig, 1839. VARABUCHI. 241 Vararuchi, being cursed by the wife of Siva, was born at Kau6ambi, the capital of Yatsa. He was a boy of great talent and extraordinary powers of memory. He was able to repeat to his mother an entire play, after hearing it once at the theatre ; and before he was even initiated he was able to repeat the Prftti^llkhya which he had heard from Vyd.Ii. He was afterwards the pupil of Yarsha, became proficient in all sacred knowledge, and actually defeated Pdiuni in a gram- matical controversy. By the interference of l^iva, however, the final victory fell to P&nini. E&tyd.yana had to appease the anger of Siva, became himself a student of P&nini's Grammar, and completed and corrected it. He afterwards is said to have become minister of King Nanda and his mysterious successor Yogananda at Pd^taliputra. We know that Efttyd.yana completed and corrected Pdnini's Grammar, such as we now possess it.^ His Yftrttikas are supplementary rules, which show a more extensive and accurate knowledge of Sanskrit than even the work of F&nini. The story of the contest between them was most likely intended as a mythical way of explaining this fact. Again we know that E&tyS.yana was himself the author of one of the Pr&ti^&khyas, and Yyali is quoted by the authors of the Pr&ti^hyas as an earlier authority on the same subject.^ So far the story of Somadeva agrees with the account of Shadguru^ishya and with the facts as > The same question with regard to the probable age of Panini, has been discussed bj Prof. Bohtlingk in his edition of Panini. Objections to Prof. Bohtlingk's arguments have been raised bj Prof. Weber in his Indische Studien. See also Rig-veda, Leipzig, 1 S57, In trod uction. * Cf. Big-veda, Leipzig, 1857 p. lz?ii. R 242 DATB OF kAtyAyana. we still find them in the works of Ed.tyd.yana. It would be wrong to expect in a work like that of Somadeva historical and chronological facts in the strict sense of the word ; yet the mention of King Nanda, who is an historical personage, in connection with our grammarian, may, if properly interpreted, help to fix approximately the date of £&tyftyana and his predecessors, Saunaka and A6vald.yana. If Somadeva followed the same chronological system as his contemporary and countryman, Kalhana Pandita, the author of the Rdjatarangint or History of Kashmir, he would, in calling P&nini and K&ty&yana, the con- temporaries of Nanda and Chandragupta, have placed them long before the times which we are wont to call historical.^ But the name of Chandragupta fortunately enables us to check the extravagant systems of Indian chronology. Chandragupta, of Pd.taliputra, the suc- cessor of the Nandas, is Sandrocottus, of Palibothra, to whom Megasthenes was sent as ambassador from Seleucus Nicator ; and, if our classical chronology is right, he must have been king at the turning point of the fourth and third centuries b.c. We shall have to examine hereafter the different accounts which the Buddhists and Brahmans give of Chandragupta and his relation to the preceding dynasty of the Nandas. Suffice it for the present that if Chandragupta was king in 815, K&ty&yana may be placed, according to our interpretation of Somadeva's story, in the second half of the fourth century B.C. We may disregard the story of Somadeva, which actually makes K&tydr yana himself minister of Nanda, and thus would make him an old man at the time of Chandragupta's ac- cession to the throne. This is, according to its own ^ Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, ii. 18. .^^ ^^^^ ^ V '!/// DATE O^ /^ ^ , mere episode ^^ i in order to r fables of th^ remains this oi^ r, that as late uS r tradition of -tb© immarians K&.ty fe.Y their history ^v\\\^ Chandragupta a.T^A ' ^ an European ^poxTit, ^ >nd half of th^ ft>xirl tstion now stT-xses^ ca"^ a Eatyfl,yaaa, Tt>^ stre Professo r JA <>l x tliTl le; and he ^Tx<i^a.^oi^ men taiy of I* stts a-x^j ali f k&3 of K4ty^y£i.xxsi axuJ 1 in themici^il^ of tH^ n the histoT-y of _ ^ f Kashmii-, s^xx-fc fox- B*^ lyainhia lE:ix:i^ioTXL- si^n, as I?x-ofc3SSOTr Tit> as I ^'yi ^i i'^j Sto^ >/, ^- fy^ '^?tedtbe dynasty; and ^ /f netied by additional tHougU that this X to show tbat the V.\p\ieW^\>^aces\>oth ••SSE :^ r-: ^"^^^;,^C^ *^ ^ ^a\& v" ^■^' .tvV century b, C3 - , t>xit:', "^^IZ-^^ ^^^ 'rofeasor L&ss^:", m t^ SmfX' thus this .T-^^*"Vt^^ ^^f-^ -^ ^^i^ Indian UteTT.*'-e dat^ ^^'^^^'tfi^-^^^^l .mment^^5- ^^V ri^po*"*"? ?>^ :^ *^ famous ^^ ^-^^„Tl^air -^t^- ^^ ^- xwo* vv^ ap' *^F*^'6l' gtothesot*'"'^ liose corpse .! mated- 244 struA PERIOD. A.B., shows at least that we cannot be very far wrong in placing the composition of the original grammar and of the supplementary rules of K&ty&yana on the threshold of the third century B.C. At what time the Mah&bh­a was first composed it is impossible to say. Patanjali, the author of the Great Commentary, is sometimes identified with Pingala ; and on this view, as Pingala is called the younger brother, or at least the descendant of P&nini^, it might be supposed that the original composition of the Mah&bhftshya belonged to the third century. But the identity of Pingala and Patanjali is far from probable, and it would be rash to use it as a foundation for other calculations. It will readily be seen how entirely hypothetical all these arguments are. If they possess any force it is this, that in spite of the conflicting statements of Brahmanical, Buddhist, and European scholars, nothing has been brought forward as yet that would render the date here assigned to E&tyftyana impos- sible. Nay more ; — if we place E&ty4yana in the second half of the fourth century, A6vaIS.yana, the predecessor of Kd,tyd.