208 THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY. [July, 1873. iB a passage in tho Mahdbhdshya: 1 Mathur&y&h PAtaliputram pfirvam * which gives ns just tho opposite direction, as it implies that P&fcalipufcra was situated between the speaker and M a t h n r &: the speaker therefore must have lived to tho east of the former. It is true that Bhand&rkar over¬ comes this difficulty by translating these words by “ Pataliputra is to the cast of MathurA,” but I donbt very much the correctness of his transla¬ tion of p&rvam in this case, as Patanjali states it expressly as his purport to give an example, where ptirva stands in the sense of vyavahita, i.e. of distance (not of direction). How are wo now to account for two so contradictory statements P “ na hyeko Devadatto yugapat Srughne Matliur&y&m cha sambhavati.” One might resort to taking them as a proof that Patanjali had visited dif¬ ferent part3 of India while he was writing tho Mahdbhdshya, and that one passage comes from a time when he lived to the west, the other from a time when ho lived to the east of P&taliputra, as there may have been, according to Bli&nd&rkar him¬ self (in his first article, vol. I. p. 301), also a time when he lived in this town. Or, we might take one or the other passage as one of those which have crept into his work under the remodelling which it underwent by Chandr&ch&ry&dibhih (p. 58). Or we may waive that question altoge¬ ther. Thus much remains: we cannot rely on either of them for attaining to certainty about Patanjali’s dwelling-place, far less, as Bh&nd&rkar takes it, about his native place. The only support for this latter supposition is his explanation of the name of Gonda by Gonarda; but in giving it he has failed to give attention to the statement of the K&rika (though ho mentions it) which adduced Gonardiya as an instance of a place situated in tho east. This statement appears fatal to his view, as a district situated to tho north-west of Oudh cannot well bo said, in a work written in Benares, to bo situated prdcham dcSe. Finally, even tho correctness of his identification of 8 & k e t a, as mentioned in this passage of tho Mahdbhdshya with Oudh, may be as much called in question, as the other passage, adduced already, by Goldstuckcr: “ Arunad Yavanah Saketam,”
- In my Note, Ind. Stud. V. 151, I remarked that—
1 this is open to question. For there were several plaee3 called Sakota. Koppen (I. 112, 113) adduces very forcible reasons for the opinion that the Saketa (S&ketu, according to Hardy) mentioned so frequently in the life of Buddha cannot bo Ay odli y A, ns lesson assumes (IT. 65). Ani Lassen himself shows (HI. l'J'J, 200) that just 03 Little can tho Ptolemaic S age da, Sdyr/fii prjTpoTroXis in tho country of the ’ A5ciaaOpot, who dwell pt^pt tov Ou£eVroy opovs (Ptolem. VII. 1. 71), be AyodhyA. According to tho view of II. Kiepert, which, in answer to my inquiry, ho has meat kindly c< •mmunicated, in an attempt to adapt the state- me-nts of Ptolemy to our present geography, tho position of 8 a g e d a on the Ptolemaic map would fall southward as there are two or three other towns of that name, any one of which has, prima vista, tho same right to bo the Saketa of either of these two pas¬ sages of tho Mahdbhdshya as Oudh has.* To proceed, Bh&ndarkar’s remark “on the native country *of K&tyayana would be very conclusive but for one rather serious drawback— there is, so far as I can see, no cogency in taking tho words “ yathfi laukikavaidikeshu” as a vdrt- tiha; they are a simple examplo quoted by Pa¬ tanjali from tho speech of tho Dakshin&tya, as ho refers to it in other places, for (Ballantyne p. 387) “asticha loko sarastsabdasya pravpittih, dakshindpatho hi mnhanti saransi sarasya ity uchhyantc.” We know from the Vdkyapadiyam that the Mahdbhdshya remained for some time preserved in books only (Stenzler in Ind. Stud. Y. 448) amongst the D&ksliin&fcya, a tradition which no doubt renders the assumption probable that we may thus have to account for some such al¬ lusions. For taking tho word dchdryadciiya in the sense of " ich&rya the younger,” as Bh&nd&rkar proposes (p. 96), I can find no authority. Either wo must take it like (sabrahmachart) taddesyah (Mahd- bhdr. XII. 6305,) as “ countryman of the Ach&rya” (though no doubt Ach&ryasadesiyo would be more oorrect), or it conveys the idea of a certain inferior¬ ity in rank (tshad asam&ptau, P&n. V. 3, 67); and with Goldstiickcr, I doubt very much, whether Kafyyata, who supports in general Patafijali's views against KAty&yana, would have called him by such an epithet, reserving the title of &ch&rya to the latter. With regard to my opinion “that the word dchdrya in such expressions as patyati tu dchd- ryah, as occurring in the Mahdbhdshya, applies to Patanjali. I think Bh&ndarkar right in correcting it in tho instances given, in others I am still doubt¬ ful ; the question appears not yet ripe for being finally settled. In the passage about the M&nryas I must leave it to others to decide if Patafijali’s words do really imply it as his opinion that Panini himself, in referring to images that were saleable, had in his eye such as those that had come down from the from Palimbothra, in the direction of the Vindhya and the south of India, probably in the upper regions of the Sonft, still northward from Amnrakantaka, and by no means so far southward into tho Dukhan as Lassen assumes it to be; perhaps it lay even on tho northern slope of the Vindhya. Finally, Ptolemy mentions another S a g e d a (tho text has Sagada, see Lassen, II. 2 kl), which however lies in further India, and consequently does not concern us here. On the whole, there is none of the places mentioned bearing tho name SAketa that lies nearer tho kingdom of Kanishka than the one which corresponds to the modern Oudh: and a3 to tho thing itself, consequently, it matters little to which of them we refer the quotation from Patanjali.’
