300
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
“The Yavana besieged [arunat] the Mādhya mikas.” The siege of Saketa, therefore, must be considered to have been an event capable of
[Oct. 4, 1872.
when an action, such as that of studying or per forming the great sacrifices, spreads over many days, the present tense should be used to denote
being witnessed by the speaker, i. e., by Patanjali
it, if the action has begun but not ended, even
himself, in other words,
though at the time of speaking the speaker may not be actually performing the action. “Here we sacrifice for Pushpamitra,” is Patanjali's example. Now this cannot be an imaginary in
some Yavana king
must have besieged Säketa in Patanjali's time. Säketa is the usual name for Ayodhyā. Rea soning in this way, the late Prof. Goldstücker arrived at the conclusion that the Yavana here
stance, for such a one would not bring out the dis
spoken of must have been Menandros, King of Baktria, who is said to have pushed his con quests in India to the river Yamunā. Menan dros, according to Prof. Lassen, became king about 144 B. C. Pantanjali therefore must have
tinctive sense that Patanjali wishes to convey,
lived about that time.
But there is another passage in Patanjali not noticed by Prof. Goldstücker, in which the name of the king of Pātaliputra, during whose reign he flourished, is given, and which enables us to arrive at the date of the author of the Mahā
namely, that the action has begun but not ended. This example then expresses a fact; i.e., that at
the time Patanjali wrote, there lived a person named Pushpamitra and a great sacrifice was being performed for him and under his orders. If he employed priests to perform the great sacrifices for him he must have been a king ;
for in the olden days it was Indian kings that propitiated the gods and patronized the Brah mans in this way. The sacrifices were always
bhāshya in another way and from other data. In his remarks on Pán. III. 2-123, Patanjali quotes a vårtika of Kātyāyana, the meaning of
expensive, and were treated rather as extraordi nary festivals than ordinary religious perform
which is “A rule should be made teaching the
shya we are actually told who this Pushpa mitra was. Pånini (in I. 1, 68) tells us that any grammatical change or operation that he may have in his work prescribed in the case of a certain word ought to be made applicable to that word alone and not to what it signifies, or to its synonymes. This, however, does not hold
use of the present tense [lat] to denote an action or undertaking which has been begun but not finished.” The examples given by Patanjali are:—“Here we study;” “Here we dwell;” “Here we perform (as priests) the sacrifices (instituted) by Pushpamitra.” Then Patanjali asks “How is it that Panini's rule III. 2-123, (Vartamâne lat), which teaches that the present tense should be used to denote present time, does not extend to these cases 2" The answer is, “the time
ances.
But in another part of the Mahābhā
in the case of his own technical terms.
Thus, for
instance, to form derivatives in a certain sense from the word agni (fire) the termination eya should, he says, be applied to agni. The mean ing of this rule should not be stretched so as to
here involved is not present time.” How not 2 This question is answered by Kaiyata, whose gloss upon this runs as follows:—“The phrase “here we study’ means that study has begun but not ended. When the students being
make it applicable not only to agni, but to other words also, having the sense of agni. Vahni for
engaged in dining and doing such other things do not study they cannot then properly say
be effected in the case of the things (which of course are words) signified by that term. Thus, for instance, when he tells us to apply a certain termination to ghu, it is to be applied, not to ghu itself, but to the roots to which the name ghu is given by him. Now Patanjali, after a long dis
‘we study’ [according to Pan. III. 2-123, i.e., they cannot use the present tense, for it is not study that is then going on, and consequently the time is not present; J hence the rule by Kātyāyana.” The sense of the whole is, that
• Panini ałHF #3 III. 2, 128, Kātyāyana Tārºſſ firſå fåſsiſ hazāāśāſāāſā, Patanjali Hāvār firſä Fiſhizit Häläſstäki rā Taſh: ré gºt
fää Hſiaſiſ: ſă: H: #F# = ſāvīſāi sãHrážň Kaiyata Hi-Hºiſil raisits rººqi Hää HR = H
instance also means fire but does not take that termination.
But in the case of the technical
terms of grammar, the change or operation should
cussion of this rule, in the course of which he
a #ſºria Târ-ı âHſłłºńffizi aſāſā āār witHå få Riſit H Tââlâ ####||
Patanjali then
proceeds to say that the sense is conveyed by Pán. III-2-123 and no new rule is required, but this has no bearing on the present question.
