1. Auchitya Alankara Kshemendra with a Note on Date of Patanjali Peter Peterson 1885

The

Auchityalam ... of

Kshemendra

Peter Peterson

Digitized by Google

O

THE

AUCHITYALAMKARA OF KSHEMENDRA,

WITH A NOTE ON THE

DATE OF PATANJALI,

AND

AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH;

Two Papers read before the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society;

WITH A PREFACE IN REPLY TO PROFESSOR BHANDARKAR.

BY

PETER PETERSON,

ELPHINSTONE PROFESSOR OF SANSKRIT, BOMBAY.

Bombap : PRINTED AT THE EDUCATION SOCIETY'S PRESS, BYCULLA.

1885. Price Re. 1.

Google

9md 54158.3.25

HARVARD COLLEGE Ai e 20.1933 LIBRARY

Digitized by Google

PREFATORY.

THE first of the two papers that follow contains a short account of a small treatise on rhetoric by the Kashmirian poet, Kshe- mendra, called the Auchityavicharacharcha.1 In examining that book I was extremely interested to find that Kshemendra quotes in its entirety a verse, the last pâda of which is quoted in Patanjali's Mahabhashya, and that he gives the name of the author of the verse as one Kumaradasa. This is the name of one of the authors quoted in the Anthologies of Vallabhadeva and Sarngadhara: and I set out the verses known from these sources to be by this poet in support of the contention that a writer who quotes Kumaradasa cannot have lived in the second century before Christ. Mr. K. T. Telang, in the course of some remarks on my paper, referred to this part of it as, in the light of accepted facts, pointing rather to the conclusion that Kumaradasa must be put prior to the accepted date for the author of the Mahabhashya than to the conclusion I had suggested. It was in response to this challenge that I drew up the Note on the Date of Patanjali which is appended to this paper. I am induced to publish the paper in its present form chiefly from a desire to animadvert here

1 This is Kshemendra's own name for the book. Auchityalamkara, the name by which it is referred to in my paper, probably came into use as a convenient short title.

Digitized by Google

4 PREFATORY.

very briefly on the reply2 from Dr. Bhandarkar which that Note has elicited. The Note was negative in its character, and its main conten- tion is not I think misrepresented if I deseribe it as an attempt to show that there is nothing on the record inconsistent with some considerably later date for Patanjali than the second century before Christ. Goldstücker, I knew, had maintained that two passages in the Mahabhashya taken together proved that Patanjali lived after the overthrow of the Maurya Dynasty in the third century B.C., and at the time of certain events to which he himself refers as events of contemporary history, and which, according to Goldstucker, must be taken to have occurred in the middle of the second century before Christ. If Goldstücker's conten- tion were correct, there was of course an end at once of mine: and my first care was to examine again independently the pas- sages he relies on. It will be seen that I claim to show that Goldstucker misunderstood the grammatical import of the passage in which the supposed reference to the Maurya Dynasty occurs, and that I contend that, with his wrong translation disappears all reason for seeing in the passage any reference to a dynasty at all. Dr. Bhandarkar admits the first of these conclusions, but dissents from the second. He holds that the grounds for taking Maurya as the name of a dynasty that was extinct in Patanjali's time still remain. "The contrast be- tween a royal dynasty and common people [which was Gold- stucker's ground] is not that ground: but there is another ground which Professor Peterson has lost sight of, and which consequently has been neglected in his translation." Bhandarkar proceeds to give my translation, and to show .ª The Date of Patanjali. A Reply to Professor Peterson ; by Kamkrishna Gopal Bhandarkar, M.A., &c.

Digitized by Google

PREFATORY. 5

where it is, as he takes it, incorrect. For convenience of re- ference I give below the passage in dispute,3 my translation, and Bhandarkar's criticism : and will state here what I have to urge in reply. This I will do briefly.

3 Mahabhashya on Pan. V. 3, 99. अपण्य इत्युच्यते तत्रेदं न सिध्यति। शिवः स्कन्दो विशाख इति। कि कारणम्। मौयर्िरण्यािभिरर्चाः प्रकल्पिताः। भवेत्तासु न स्यात्। यास्त्वेताः संप्रति पुजार्थास्तासु भविष्यति॥ "In that case [if arqus is to be part of the rule] the following expression is not obtained [i.e. must be declared to be bad grammar, while as a matter of fact it is in common use, and so it is the correctness of the sûtra that is in peril.] स्कन्दो विशाखः "A Skanda in act to shoot." "Why ?" " It is for gain that the Mauryas make images." arg FTa "Let it be admitted that so far to them the rule कनो लुप should not apply, but that the affix ka should be used. यास्त्वेता: संत्रति पूजार्था: But whatever images among these even, are from the beginning intended for worship and not for sale, ara fasua to them that rule will apply, and the affix ka will be barred." Professor Peterson rejects the reading fTa: before F ?: , why, I do not understand, unless the reason be that it goes against the translation which he has worked himself into believing to be correct. faaTra: he translates by "in act to shoot" and his authority is a certain explanation of the word with a second-hand quotation in support from a commentary on the Amarakosa, contained in the St. Petersburg Lexicon, and copied from that as a matter of course by Monier Williams. But Bohtlingk and Roth have not found a single instance of the use of the word in that sense in the whole extent of the literature which they have examined. Still Professor Peterson thinks Patanjali has used it in that sense. But after all what Bohtlingk and Roth and Monier Williams say is that faaTrta expresses "an attitude in shoot- ing"; and not" one in that attitude"; so that if the sense is to be admitted here at all, स्कन्दो विशाख: would mean " Skanda who is an attitude in shoot- ing," which of course will not do. Patañjali, however, uses the word as expressive of a certain god who is always mentioned together with Skanda. Under Pan. VIII. 1. 15, he gives द्वन्द्व स्कन्दविशाखौ along with इन्द्वूं पर्वतना- Tar as an instance of a copulative compound of the names of things or per- sons always mentioned together, which admits of the use of the word Dvan- dva or "pair" instead of Dvau, or "two." It is clear from this that Patañjali himself means to speak of them as two individuals always asso- .ciated together, and forming a pair, and the dual also expresses that they were two.

Digitized by Google

6 PREFATORY.

And first of my "Skanda in act to shoot." My authority was not Monier Williams, nor was it the mere explanation of the word in the St. Petersburg Dictionary. Like other Now Professor Peterson's translation of मौर्येोहिरण्याथिभिरर्चाः प्रकल्पिता: is "It is for gain that the Mauryas make images. " " Make" is present tense while the original ynfeqar: is past tense, that being the past passive participle of the causal of कृप. Again प्रकल्पिता: means " devised," "planned," "used as means, " and not simply "made." A closer translation of fenn: than that we have in the expression " for gain" ought to be given, for an im- portant point is involved in that. Patañjali applies several times the ex- pression आथनश्च हिरण्येन भवन्ति "seek for gold" to kings, and the presumption it gives rise to is that here too those to whom he applies it must be kings. In the last sentence Professor Peterson's translation of the nominative qa: by "among these" is wrong. It is only the genitive gararH or the loca- tive एतासु that can be so translated. Similarly सभाति cannot mean "from the beginning" as the Professor takes it to mean; it can only signify "now," "in these days," &c. The sense of the passage is this. Panini lays down a rule that the ter- mination ka which is appended to the name of an object to signify some- thing resembling that object (ra), provided that something is an image (प्रतिकृतौ), is dropped (कनो लप्), when the image is used for deriving a liveli- hood (जीविकार्थे) and is not vendible (अपण्ये). Now Patanijali raises this question. The addition of the condition that the image should not be ven- dible renders such forms as Sivah, Skandah, Visakhah, grammatically not justifiable (तत्रेदं-विशाख इति.) He must here be taken to mean that these forms are current, and that the description " not vendible " is not applicable to them. "Why not " (f aTTTH), he asks. " Because the Mauryas, seek- ing for gold or money, used images of gods as means" (मौर्ये-प्रकल्पिता.). Here the author must be understood to say that the description " not ven- dible " is not applicable to the images now called Sivah, Skandah, and Viśâ- kah, because such images were sold by the Mauryas. They are therefore vendible objects, though as a matter of fact they are not for sale, and though the selling of such images of gods is discreditable. It is the act of the Mauryas that has rendered them vendible objects. Hence the termination cannot be dropped in accordance with the rule, and they should be called Śivakah, Skandakah and Visakhakah, but they are called Śivah, Skandah, and Visakhah. "It may be ( "aa ) that the rule about the dropping of ka is not applicable (न स्यात्) to them, i.e. to those (तामु) images of gods which were sold by the Mauryas. But as to these (qar:) [viz. those called by the names Sivah, Skandah, and Visakhah, the correctness of which is in

Google

PREFATORY. 7

students I am under constant obligation to both these diction- aries. But I endeavour also to use my own judgment : and if Bhandarkar will turn to the word aurer in the St. Peters- burg Dictionary, I think he will agree with me that Bohtlingk and Roth supply, with their explanation, sufficient evidence

question] which (याः) are at the present day used for worship (संप्रति पूजार्थाः) the rule is applicable to them (तासु भविष्यति)." That is, the termination ka should be dropped in their case and the forms whose correctness was ques- tioned are correct. The forms are correct, because they signify images of gods which are now worshipped and are not vendible. They were thought to come under the class of vendible objects because such images were used by the Mauryas for raising money; but the vendibility of some does not make those that are worshipped vendible, and consequently the names of those images do come under Pânini's rule and drop ka. In understanding the passage thus I have set aside Nagojibhatta's comment which I think can be shown to be wrong. He appears to me to say that the words Sivah, Skandah, and Visâkhah express images sold by the Mauryas, and as such they are vendible objects and consequently should have the termination ka, i.e. the forms should be Sivakah, &c., and not Sivah, &c., as given in the Mahabhashya which are incorrect, while those, which, in conformity with Panini's sutra drop ka, are such as express images, intended for that sort of worship which immediately after their manufacture brings in gains and enables a man to earn his livelihood. Now this makes no difference as to the province or operation of Panini's rule; but that the passage itself has been misunder- stood by Nagojibhatta appears to me clear. He interprets संप्रति पूजार्था:as "bringing in gains immediately after manufacture," which interpretation is far-fetched, as are those of all commentators when they do not understand the point and still wish to explain a passage somehow. He also neglects the the word QGT :. But the great mistake he makes is his forgetting that when Patanjali supposes an opponent and makes him raise an objection by the expression न सिध्यति, "this is not justifiable by that rule," he very generally makes him object to the rule by bringing forward correct forms which that rule does not explain. Eventually, he interprets the rule in such a manner that those forms also are explained by it. In accordance with my interpretation this is exactly what is done here by Patanjali. If the passage were put in the form of a dialogue between the Doctor (Siddhantin) and his opponent (Purvapakshin), it would stand thus :- Op. PAnini inserts the condition that the image should not be vendible. Then, the forms Sivah, Skandha, Visakhah are not correct according to his

Digitized by Google

8 PREFATORY.

that that word is used in the sense I have endeavoured to fix on faury here.5 I do not understand the force, in Bhan- darkar's mouth, of the appeal to the fact that my authorities, such as they are, do not recognize a corresponding use of the adjective विशाख. They do not. But if वैशाखं स्थानम् is used ofan attitude in shooting it would not, I think, be easy to show why Rar might not be used as an adjective to a word signifying an image as indicating that attitude. It would have been well if I had given the precise reference ; but I had these quotations in view when considering the passage, and I may therefore fairly, I think, dissent from the remark that my authority is "a certain explanation of the word with a second-hand quota- tion in support from a commentary on the Amarakosa, contained in the St. Petersburg Lexicon, and copied from thatas a matter of course by Monier Williams." On another small point too here Bhandarkar does me some wrong. He does not understand why I reject the reading शिव: before स्कन्दः, "unless the reason be that it goes against the translation which" I have " worked myself into believing to be correct." It would be a legitimate retort to say that Bhandarkar reads Chandragupta-sabha, against Kielhorn, in the note on Pânini I, 1, 68, because the omission of that word might be fatal to the edifice Bhandarkar

rule. [These forms express images of those gods, and should have the suffix ka.] Doc. Why? Op. Because the Mauryas, desirous of raising money, used as means the images of gods [i.e. they bartered them; and these are such images, and consequently belong to the class of vendible objectsJ. Doc. Those images may not come under the rule [because they bartered them, and consequently they may not drop ka]. But these [viz., those in question], which at the present day are used for worship, come under the operation of the rule [and consequently the ka is dropped]. They quote two passages from the Harivanisa भूय: प्रहर्तुकामो मां वैशाखेना- स्थितो महीम् 6235; and वैशाखं स्थानमासाय, (said of Baladeva).

Google

PREFATORY. 9

has raised upon it. But Bhandarkar gives bis authority for the reading he prefers. And so did I. It will be seen that since writing my paper I have ascertained that the Alwar MS. of the Mahabhashya also omits forr :. I can add now that, having been given an opportunity by my friend the Honorable Rao Saheb Visvanath Narayan Mandlik of consulting the fine copy of the Bhashya with Kaiyyata's Pradipa in his private collection, I find that there too the reading is तेदं न सिध्यत स्कंदा विशाखति. We have thus the India Office Photozincogra- phic copy of Kaiyyata, this one of the Rao Saheb's, the Alwar MS. of the Mahabhashya, and one of Kielhorn's MSS. all testifying to a reading which is not to be rejected so lightly as Bhandarkar thinks. And if the reading I prefer turns out ultimately to be that which the weight of evidence shows to be correct, Bhandarkar's attempt to refer the following qar: (nominative plural) to these words will fall to the ground. It would seem then that my critic is here as much exposed, to say the least, to the danger of unconscious bias as I can be. Neither the right reading however, nor the exact interpreta- tion of the phrase [शिवः?] स्कन्दो विशाख इति is, as it happens and as I was careful to point out, material to the first point at issue. We are agreed here as against Goldstücker that the phrase con- tains instances, or an instance, of a form which as denoting an image is prima facie incorrect under the rule. Let it be admitted then, for the sake of the argument, that the instance put forward is not the word skanda, in such a context as shall show it is the name of an image of the god, and not the god himself, that is meant, but three names heaped together, which we are to understand from the general tenor of the whole pas- sage to be the names of images. The question is as to what the next words mean, and here I join issue directly with my critic. 2

Digitized by Google

10 PRETATORY.

We are dealing hère with images or idole which are profit- able all of them for a livelihood, but which may or may not be for sale. This last distinction is a perfectly intelligible one, and I do not understand why Bhandarkar should insist as he does, that the vendible character of certain images must be taken to be due to some mysterions action taken with regard to them by the Maurya kings, or what grounds he has for maintaining that these images and these images alone are referred to in the words Siva, Skanda, Visakha. Idols have been sold from the beginning and are sold now: and the supply will doubtless continue so long as the demand shall last. Nor is there anything discreditable in the idol-makers' profession per se. Such names of idols then as Siva, Skanda, Visakha are for the matter in hand colourless. They do not of themselves tell us whether the objects of which they are the names-that is idols in general-are panya or apanya, vendible or not vendible, much less whether such particular idols as may by a forced construction be supposed to be referred to, are those the Manryas dealt in or not. What then is it that raises the presumption, which it is necessary to notice, that all idols are in their nature vendible ? The answer to this query lies in the phrase मौयैहिरण्यार्थिभिरर्चा: प्रकल्पिताः Doesthis mean, as I take it, "It is for gain that the Mauryas make images," or, as Bhandarkar believes, "The Mauryas seeking for gold or money used images of gods as means." I will first repudiate the charge that I commit here the schoolboy error of rendering a word that denotes past time by a word that denotes present time. There is no restriction to time present, past or future in my English sentence, any more than there is in the Sanskrit so-called " past passive participle" प्रकिल्पिता. The Mauryas, it may be, had made, were then making, and would continue to make images, but that is not

Digitized by Google

PREFATORY. 11

Patanjali's assertion here. What he says is that in making images they do not act from disinterested motives. They are in search of gain. In view of Dr. Bhandarkar's misappre- hension on this point I should prefer now to translate "images are made by the Mauryas for gain," and I am confident that the so-called past passive participle in Sanskrit is the proper translation of "made" here, and that the use of the present would convey an entirely different meaning. But I do not repudiate my first translation, which is merely a more idiomatic rendering of the same thing. I traverse directly Bhandarkar's contention that the use of aenfeuar: throws the whole action, as far as Patanjali is concerned, into the past. yfeyar: denotes no more than that the action of making is to be conceived as completed. It has not that note of time which Bhandarkar sees in it. But while refusing to admit that the action in this sentence must belong to past time I will not fall into the opposite error of maintaining that it must be present. Bhandarkar may be right even if he has not, as I think he has not, any warrant for being so positive. The speaker may very well be referring to some notorious action of past time when lust for gain (हिरवरायार्थिभि:) led the "Mauryas" into paths to them forbidden. For if the "Mauryas" turned images into a source of profit it would surely seem to follow that images must be vendible things. Not being then of the class to whom such manufacture and sale is not forbidden the "Mauryas" may have trafficked in idols. Or love of money may have led the "Mauryas" to commit the heinous sin of selling idols that had once been con- secrated. Nay the " Mauryas" may have been the then Para- mount Power, and as such dealt with idols as the English Go- vernment deals with opium. Any one of these things may be. None of them, in my view, must be. For who were these " Mauryas," whose connection with

.

Google

12 PREFATORY.

images raises a presumption that images as a class, not certain images as Bhandarkar would understand, are vendible? The fact of course is that we do not know. I can only say that the context appears to me to lend very strong support to Nâgoji- bhatta's assertion that they are idol-makers, and that, whether that be so or not, I can discover in the same context absolutely no reason for taking them to be the Maurya kings, whether of the third century before Christ or of the sixth century after Christ. That Patanjali in other places speaks of kings too as actuated by desire of gain is hardly conclusive. I admit that प्रकल्पिता: is a difficult word. But it is as dif- ficult for Dr. Bhandarkar as it is for me. And while I believe that it can mean 'made' or ' made and sold,' I doubt whether it can mean 'used as a means to that end, namely making money,' which appears to be in effect the construction sought to be put on it. In my construction of qaT: I am fully supported by Kaiyyata and Nagojibhatta, neither of whom refer that word to the be- ginning of the paragraph.5 I do not think it can, in accordance

To make this clear I give Kaiyyata's note and Nagojibhatta's gloss upon it :- Kaiyyata: यास्त्वेता इति। या: परिगृध्य गृहाव्ृह्मटन्ति तास्वित्यर्थः। यास्तु विक्री- यम्ते तास न भवति । शिवकान्विक्रीणीत इति .- Nagojibhatta: मौर्या विक्रेतं पतिमा- शिल्पवन्तस्तैरर्चा: प्रकल्पिताः। विक्रेतुमिति शेषोतस्तासां पण्यत्वासत्र प्रत्ययभ्रवणमसप इति भाव:। तत्र प्रत्ययश्रवणभिष्टमेवेति वदन्सूभस्योदाहरणं दर्शयति। भवेदित्याि। यास्त्वेता इति च । संप्रतिपूजार्थाः । संपति स्वनिर्माणसमकालमेव फलजनिका या पूजा जीविकापदत्वेन तदर्था इत्यर्थस्तदाह। या: परिगृद्योते। यास्तु गृहे पूज्यन्ते शिष्टैस्तासु शिवाभेदबुद्धे: सत्वेन सादृश्यबुद्धयभावेन प्रत्ययस्यैवाभावः । एवं चित्रेष्वपि पष्टव्यम्. How Kaiyyata understood the passage is not, to my mind, open to ques- tion. His short note deals only with the clause Fadf:, which, according to Bhandarkar refers to the beginning of the paragraph. And his meaning is that the case of images made by Mauryas with an eye to gain must be finally disposed of in re this rule, according as they are either taken from door to door that service may be held and a " collection" made, or sold. I believe

Digitized by Google

PREFATORY. 13

with the ordinary rules of construction, be referred farther back than the srar: of the preceding clause. And I feel sure that it would have been made to stand before, and not after the adversative particle if it had the meaning Bhandarkar now ascribes to it. Iwill, to lighten theargument, accept Bhan- darkar's dictum that यास्त्वेता: cannot mean 'whichever of these.' But substitute for एताः its antecedent अर्चा, and we get the sim- ple meaning 'whichever images.' As I do not believe that Patanjali is drawing any distinction between images dealt with by the Mauryas and any other class of images, the point is not, in my judgment, a material one.

that Kaiyyata construes Faal: as I do, "But whichever being these" that is "But whichever of these": and that his nominative to अटन्ती is मौर्याः. I can only note here that in the India Office MS. Nagojibhatta seems actually to read ते (i.e. the Mauryas) after या: परिगृद्य in Kaiyyata. The meaning of Nagojibhatta's comment too appears to me to be quite clear, and to be moreover perfectly relevant to the "province of operation of Panini's rule." "We must," says Nagojibhatta, "understand the word वैक्रेसुम after पकाल्पिता :. The images referred to are therefore vendible, and the occasion for the suffix ka presents itself. In the two clauses that follow, beginning respectively with भवेत् and यास्त्वेता: Patanjali first (भवेत्। तासु T Pd) accepts the proposition that the occasion for the suffix has pre- sented itself, and, secondly (यास्त्वेता: संपति पूजार्थाः तासु भविष्यात) shows how nevertheless his rule is not of none effect. The phrase aa quruf: in this clause requires separate explanation : and it is explained as meaning images destined from the beginning for such lucrative worship as shall yield a liveli- hood. Lastly, the mention of this second class of images (या: परिगृधति) sug- gests a final remark which may be necessary to avoid all misapprehension. Images are not exhgustively divided into those which are hawked about from house to house that the owner may levy a religious toll, and those which are sold right off. There are images which are exposed to neither indignity, but are set up and remain for worship and for worship only. With regard to these Nagojibhatta holds that the condition precedent of the suffix is absent. These images are not things made in the likeness of the god. They are the god himself.

Digitized by Google

14 PREFATORY.

Kaiyyata explains संप्ति पूजार्था: by याः परिगृह्य गृहाङ्रहमटन्ति and Nagojibhatta's Note is संपति स्वनिर्माणसमकालमेव फलजनिका या पूजा जीविकापवत्वेन तदर्था :. I follow respectable authority then in taking ara to refer not to the time of speaking "now," " in these days," but to the time of manufacture "at the time," "from the beginning." If the time of speaking is the same as the time of manufacture the distinction is one without a difference. I do not dispute however that Nagojibhatta may be wrong, and that the sense may be ' now.' In that case the meaning will be that even images which have been objects of barter, if they have ceased to be such, and are now objects of worship only, must be held to have acquired the quality of apanyatva. Bhandarkar has pointed out that he himself published a trans- lation of this passage in 1873, "in accordance with the native commentators" when he also stated that Goldstücker's interpre- tation was wrong. I greatly regret that Bhandarkar's transla- tion, although the paper which contains it is among the refer- ences I gave, escaped my notice at the time I was writing my paper. I have referred to it now, and am bound to say that in 1873 Bhandarkar had already silently corrected the worst of Goldstücker's mistakes. In other respects however Bhandar- kar's version of 1873 is very defective, a fact which in fairness should not be lost sight of when comparing my version with that with which Bhandarkar has now followed it. In 1873 Bhandarkar took Patanjali to mean that Panini's rule is arbitra- rily set aside in the case of images sold by the Mauryas, so that forms not valid are nevertheless in use. "What Patanjali means to say is that the termination ka should be applied to the names of the images sold by the Mauryas, according to Pânini's rule; but the rule is set aside in this case, and the wrong forms Siva, Skanda, and Visakha are used." This is a capital error, as Bhandarkar now sees. That it is in accordance

Digitized by Google

PREFATORY. 15

with the native commentators is a view of it due I believe to a misapprehension of Nagojibhatta's meaning, from which Bhan- darkar has not yet shaken himself free. I should be more than human if I refrained from adding that in 1873 Bhandarkar gave to the phrase arg Enq precisely that reference which he now seeks to give to the admittedly converse phrase aTedGT:, and that ear: he naturally then took in the sense he refuses to admit for it now. "It may not be dropped in those cases (i.e. the proper forms must be Sivaka &c.) says Patanjali, but it is dropped in the case of those images which are now used for worship." I think it must be admitted that if I have done nothing else I have at least led Bhandarkar to reconsider his own view of Patanjali's meaning, and that to some purpose.6 So much for the Maurya passage. Its importance, as I have pointed out, lies in the fact that what I maintain to be a mere hypothesis, not proved, if not incapable of proof, with regard to the persons meant, led Goldstucker, and has led others, to look for Patanjali's date soon after the third century before Christ. With regard to the other passages I do not think that I can usefully add anything to what will be found in the follow- ing paper. My own contention was that Patanjali had been discovered to quote Kumâradâsa, that Kumâradâsa is the author of verses of a character precisely similar to verses which we can assign to dates ranging from 600 to 1000 A.D., and that in these circumstances it was difficult to believe that Patanjali really lived in the second century before Christ. These consi- derations appear to me to be unaffected by Bhandarkar's ela- borate hypothesis as to what Patanjali must have meant by the illustration " Arunad Yavanah Sâketam," while as for Pushya- mitra and Chandragupta I have pointed out that the existence of two princes of these names reigning at about the same time

e Bhandarkar's translation of 1873 is in the Indian Antiquary, vol. II., p. 95.

Google

16 PREFATORY.

is better guaranteed for the fourth century after Christ than for the third before Christ. Iam far from saying that Patanjali must be taken to be referring to my pair of princes. I think the whole argument a most unsafe one, which affords no suffi- cient warrant to scholars to treat the subject as a closed book. One more word about Panini. It is not I think the case that I have anywhere sought to bring Pânini down to the sixth century after Christ. What I have said is, that if Panini wrote the verses ascribed to him in the anthologies he certainly did not live in the sixth century before Christ. The evidence that he did write those verses appears to me to be accumulating, though I have never attempted to say that it is yet sufficient, ώς άπανθ' όρων καί πάντ' άκούων πάντ' άναπτύσσει χρόνος.7 I cherish the hope that one day I may hold in my hands the Pâtalavijaya, or the Jambavativijaya of the 'Mahakavi' Pânini. Nor will I much grudge the prize to my friend Bhandarkar in view of the effect the prasasti may possibly have upon him. If the book be found, I do not at all anticipate thatit will turn out to be written in an archaic style.8 What appears to me on a

' This is Aufrecht's quotation when giving (from the Saduktikarnamrita) the fine verse attributed there, and in other anthologies, to the Bhashyakâra: यद्यपि स्वच्छभावेन दर्शयत्यम्बुधिर्मणीन्। तथापि जानुदप्रोयमिति चेतषि मा कृथा: ॥। 8 " Should the entire work be discovered and found as a whole to be written in an archaic style, there will be time enough to consider its claim to be the work of Panini; but at present we must reject that advanced on behalf of these artificial verses."-Bhandarkar's paper. Pischel has recently suggested that the Patalavijaya may turn out to be a grammatical poem of the same kind as the Bhattikavya. The suggestion is not in harmony with the verses that have been recovered : and itself rests on a misapprehension of the reference to the Patalavijaya in Nami's commentary on Rudrata. As the matter is of some importance, and as I my- self am disposed to attach a special significance to Nami's reference to Pânini, I will give the passage here from the Bombay Government Palmleaf copy, (No. 53 of Kielhorn's Coll.) and from the Paper copy secured by me for

Digitized by Google

PREFATORY. 17

review of the whole case to be probable is that Panini was one of several grammarians who, late in the study of the subject, applied the Government of Bombay. Nami is discoursing on the precise significance of the word To in the following canon of Rudrata : अन्यूनाधिकवाच कमुक्र मपुष्टार्थशब्दचारुनदं। क्षोदक्षममक्षूणं सुमतिर्वाक्यं प्रयुख्जीत ॥ And his Note is शब्दग्रहणमपशब्दनिरासार्थम् । अपशब्दनिरासश्च यथपि व्युत्पत्तिद्वारेणैव कृतस्तथापि महाकवीना मप्यप शब्दपातदर्शनात्तत्निरासादर ख्यापनाय पुनरभियोगः।तथा हि पाणिनेः पाता- लविजये महाकाव्ये। संध्यावधूं गृह्य करेणेत्यत्र गृह्येति कत्वो ल्यब।देशः। तथा तस्यैव कवेः। गतेर्धरात्रे परिमन्दमन्दं गर्जन्ति यत्पावृि कालमेघाः । अपश्यती वत्समित्रेन्दुबिम्बं तच्छर्वरी गौरिव हुंकरोति ।। इत्यत्राप्यपश्यतीदं लप्तान्तिनकारं पदम् ।। For कत्वो ल्यबादेशः ("lyap is the adesa or substitution for ktva) the Palm- leaf MSS. has स्को ल्यवादेश: and the other कत्वो ल्यबादेशः. The paper MS. reads लुतान्तिनकारपदम्. लुतान्तीनकारं पदम् ("a word the n of the anti of which has been dropped) appears to me to be wanted. Pischel sees in Nami's words here a statement to the effect that great poets use ungrammatical forms in order to impress on their readers the importance of not doing so, which would not, it may be remarked in passing, be a very nice adaptation of means to ends. But Nami does not say this. What he says is that by the use of the word &To& here his author intends to exclude apasabdas or ungrammatical forms, and that Rudrata returns to this subject to lay stress upon it, although it might be considered to have been already disposed of by what he said about vyutpatti, in view of the fact that even great poets sometimes slip in this respect. (As when Byron writes 'lay ' for 'lie,' a mistake which I observe a good English scholar has taken upon himself lately quietly to correct in editing an English Anthology for Indian students. It may be doubted whether Byron would have thanked him.) Namisadhu's short roll of offenders-all of them by his own statement mahakavis-has only four names in all, Panini, Bhartrihari, Kalidasa, and Bharavi. I have spoken of the peculiar significance I am disposed to attach to Nami's reference to Panini. I confess I think that he parposely heads his list with two, Panini and Bhartrihari, whose eminence as grammarians makes their conduct to the pedantic mind all the more anomalous. In any case the dilemma is obvious. Namisadhu must be added to the list of learned men witnessing to a poet, and a great poet, Panini, who either needed not to be distinguished from the only wearer of that name known to these later days, or was in their minds not distinguishable from him. In the former alternative how has this second Panini dropped into utter oblivion: in the second is there any good reason to suppose that men like Kshemendra and 3

Digitized by Google

18 PREFATORY.

themselves to consolidate and perfect the system of Sanskrit grammar, that the archaisms on which stress is laid are due to the fact that he was dealing with older documents, great part of which he incorporated, that the superior excellence of his grammar was early apparent, and has never since been effec- tually challenged, but that he was also a poet, and a great poet, writing as a poet in the poetical language of his day. What that day was-how far Panini will eventually have to be brought down from the date now accepted for him, or how far it may be, on the contrary, advisable to push into remoter antiquity the lyric poetry of Northern India-is a question which we have no adequate means now of determining. Let us then wait. To the paper which is the subject of this Preface I have added a second paper in which I gave the Society a fresh trans- cript and a translation of the inscription at Kansua near Kotah. This inscription is dated in the Malwa era which I have shown to be identical with the Vikramâditya era, and to have been in use under that name before 544 A.D. In reading and transla- ting the inscription I received great assistance from Dr. Bhagvanlal Indraji and from Dr. Bhandarkar, to whom I desire to offer my best thanks. Bombay, 25th August 1885.

Namisadhu, identifying the poet with the grammarian, could have been in error. Nami's exact date is still uncertain. Kielhorn gives Samvat 1176 as the date of the Palm-leaf Manuscript. I have shown that the verse from which this is taken really gives Nami's date for the composition of his work. Our palm-leaf MS. may be the first copy of the work. The reading differs in the two MSS. The Palm-leaf MS. has ष्टू सप्ततिसंयुक्कै रेकादशसमासतैः विक्रमात्समातिक्रांतैः प्रावृषीदं समार्यतं. For षदसप्ति here the Paper MS. reads पंचर्विशति. Nami therefore wrote this book either in Samvat 1176 or in Samvat 1125.

Digitized by Google

ON THE AUCHITYALAMKARA OF KSHEMENDRA, WITH A NOTE ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI.

In the course of a visit paid recently to Râjendrasûri, a Jain re- ligious teacher at the time in Ahmedabad, I noticed that his list of books, which he kindly let me look over, contained an entry Auchityâ- lamkâra. Buhler, in his review of my First Report on the Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts (Indian Antiquary, January 1884) pointed out that I had omitted from my list of the known works of the Kashmir poet Kshemendra a small treatise on rhetoric called Kavikanthabharanam, our first copy of which Buhler himself obtained. "An examination of my apograph of this manuscript by Mr. J. Schonberg,"1 Buhler goes on to say, "has shown that it contains, besides the Kavikanthabharanam, another small treatise on Alamkara called Auchityavicharacharchâ." Rajendrasuri's Auchityalamkara turned out to be the work here referred to : and through his courtesy in lending it I am able to offer in the following paper a short account of the valuable data for the history of Sanskrit literature which, within very small compass, it offers in rich profusion. A more extended notice of the book itself, and of the Kavi- kanthabharanam, which here also, as in the previous case, is presented in the same manuscript, I hope to give in my forthcoming Third Report. From the fact just alluded to it is perhaps to be conjectured that the two books were generally regarded as supplementary the one to the other. A word of preface is perhaps desirable as to the importance to us of a work like this. The poet Kshemendra tells us himself that one of his books, the Samayamâtrikâ, was finished during the reign of king Ananta, in the 25th year of the Kashmirian cycle = A.D. 1050 (Bühler's Report, p. 46). He was a most learned and voluminous writer, and, what is more to our purpose, he invariably give his references when quoting illustrations of the breach or observance of the rhetorical

Wien, 1884. 1 Mr. Schonberg has since published an account of the Kavikanthabharanam.

Digitized by Google

20 ON THE AUCHITYÂLAMKARA

rules he is discussing. We obtain from him then many names of Indian poets and their works, for all of which we get Kshemendra's own time as a lower date, after which they cannot have flourished or been written. Kshemendra's favourite method, as has been hinted, is to give first one or more examples of verses which comply with his rule, and to follow with one or more examples of verses which do not. It must be said for him that he deals out praise and censure as a true critic who is no respecter of persons. In more than one instance in- deed he illustrates the two sides of the canon he is dealing with by different verses from the same work of his own. These verses by Kshemendra himself are not included in the analysis which follows. I. AMARAKA. 1. आलोलामलकावलीं Bohtlingk 1035, from Ama- rusatakam. y तन्वंग्या: सुतरां रतांतसमये. 8 हरिहरस्कंदादिभिरदैवतैः- 2. गंतव्यं यदि नाम निश्चितमहो गंतासि केयं त्वरा द्वित्राण्येव पदानि तिष्ठतु भवान्पश्यामि यावन्मुखं । संसारे घटिकापवाहविगलद्वारा समे जीविते को जानाति पुनस्त्वया सह मम स्याद्वा न वा संगम:।। "If you must go you shall go; but why so soon? Turn and stand while I gaze on your face. Your life and mine are but two drops of the water that will rush out of the bucket when it turns the top of the wheel: and when that is done who can say whether you and I, in the lives to come, shall ever meet again."3 afdenT may also mean a waterclock, when the figure would resemble our one of the ' sands of life.' But I think yare shows that the sense is as I have indicated. It would be curious if the same figure underlies a common English colloquialism. This verse is quoted also in the Kavikanthabharanam (Schonberg, p. 14).3 Our two examples show that this poet Amaraka is not to be distinguished from the author of the Amarusatakam. Aufrecht (Z. D.M. G. 27, 7) thinks Amarû was the original form afterwards sanskritized into Amaru. II. BHATTA INDURAJA. 1. आदाय वारि परितः. Kavya Prakasa, p. 453 (Cale. Ed. 1876). B किं नाम साधितमनेन महार्णवेन. 8 पातालमूलकुहरे. Aufrecht (Z. D. M. G. 27, 94 ) cites this verse from the Sârngaddha- rapaddhati under Srisuka. 2. आश्चर्य वडवानल :. 2 "For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which can- not be gathered up again." II Samuel, xiv. 14. In B both Manuscripts read दिनानि in the Kavikanthabharanam, and पद्यानि in the book before us. Professor Bhandarkar suggests Tf 'moments.'

Digitized by Google

OF KSHEMENDRA. 21

III. SRiMAD UTPALARAJA. अहो वा हारे वा. Bohtlingk 844, from Bhartrihari. IV. KARPATIKA. . शीतेनाध्युषितस्य माघशशिवर्चितार्णवे मज्जतः श्ांतोभि: स्फुटिताधरस्य धमतः क्षुत्क्षामकंठस्य मे। निद्रा क्वापि विमानितेव दयिता संत्यज्य वूरं गता सत्पाव्प्रतिपादितेव वसुधा न क्षीयते शर्वरी।। "As I sat perishing with cold, and plunged like the moon in Mâgha ( the moon surrounded by clouds ) in a sea of thought, the fire sank low, and my blistered lips and hunger-parched throat were of no avail to keep it alight. Sleep has left me and gone like an insulted wife: and the night, like land given to a good holder, is no whit spent." 'This is the verse which Kalhana in the Rajatarangini ( III. 181 ), puts into the mouth of the poet Matrigupta,+ who is there said to have composed it impromptu, in reply to the king's enquiry as to why he alone of all the palace servants was not asleep. Its appearance here is noteworthy. Kshemendra in another passage of this small book quotes Matrigupta by name. It is impossible, I think, to say whether we are to take Karpatika as the real name of the author of one of the works which are summarised for us in the Rajataranginî or as a synonym of Matrigupta, referring to his condition as a suppliant for the king's favour. The verse occurs also in Vallabhadeva's Subhâ- shitâvali, where it is ascribed to Mâtrigupta, with the much better read- ing श्ीतेनाध्युषितस्य माषशिमिवत् 'dried up with cold like a peaspod.' V. KALIDASA. 1: अथ स विषयव्यावृत्तात्मा. RV. IV. 70. 2 इदमसुलभ° Vikram.Act II. a इदमसुलभवस्तुप्रार्थनादुर्निवार :- मलयवातांदोलित. Both good readings. 3. इह निवसति मेरुः शेखरः क्माधराणां इह विनिहितभारा: सागराः सप्त चान्ये। इदमहिपतिभोगस्तंभंविभ्राजमानं धराणेतलमिहव स्थानमस्मद्विधानाम्।। The heading to this verse is यथा कुंतेश्वरदौत्ये कालिदासस्य. I have not found the verse in any known work of Kâlidâsa, and can only suppose that Kuntesvaradautyam is the title of a lost work by the prince of Indian poets. 4. ऊरुमूलनख°. KS. VIII. 87. Kshemendra's testimony to the authenticity of the eighth canto. aऊरुमूलनखमार्गपंक्िभि: 5. क्रोध प्रभो संहर KS. III. 72. 6. जात वंशे. Meghadata V. 6. Cf. Compare Bhau Daji's Paper in Vol. VI. of the Journal, B. B. R. A. S. p. 213.

Digitized by Google

22 ON THE AUCHITYÂLAMKARA

note on No.4. 8 लब्धकामा: 7. बालेदुवक्राणि. KS. III. 29. 8. वर्णप्रकर्षे सत. KS. III. 28. VI. KUMARADASA. 1. अयि विजहीहि वृढोपगूहन त्यज नवसंगमभीरु वल्लभं। अरुणकरोङ्रम एष वर्तते वरतनु संप्रवदति कुकुटाः ।। Böhtlingk 562, from Ind. Stud. 8, 414, where it was quoted from Aufrecht. MS. विजिहीहि. As long ago as 1859 Aufrecht, in his edition of Ujjvaladatta's Commentary on the Unadi Sutras, pointed out that the fragment of a verse वरतनु संप्रवदति कछुटा: given by Ujjvaladatta in his comment. on I. 82, occurs also in the Mahabhâshya, in the note on p. I, 3, 48. ( Kielh. Ed. p. 283. ) Aufrecht at the same time gave the whole verse as he found it quoted by Nârayana on Kedâra- bhatta. The discovery that Kshemendra quotes this verse and assigns it to Kumâradâsa will one day I hope prove a valnable datum for the Mahabhashya itself. Unfortunately we do not yet know Kumaradasa's own date. But the following verses by him are quoted in the Sarngaddharapaddhati and Subhashitavali; and are presented here as, with the present example, presenting strong internal evidence that a writer who quotes Kumaradasa cannot have lived at the date now widely accepted for Patanjali. 1. पशयन्हतो मन्मथबाणपातैः शक्तो विधातुं न निमील्य चक्षः। ऊरू विधात्रा हि कृतौ कथं ता- वित्यास तस्यां सुमतेर्वितर्कः ॥ From Aufrecht, Z. D. M. G. 27, 17. 2 वाले नाथ विमुंच Aufrecht, who points out that it occurs in the Amarusatakam. 3. वयःप्रकर्षादुपचीयमान. Cited by Aufrecht. 4. शिशिरसीकरवाहिनि मारुते चरति शीतभयादिव सत्वरः । मनसिज: प्रविवेश वियोगिनीहदयमाहितशोक इताशनं।। " When the wind blew cold with showers of icy spray, Love took fright, and fled for shelter to the heart of the forsaken lover where the fire of sorrow burned." Quoted and translated by Aufrecht, who compares the Anacreontic μεσονυκτίοις ποτ' ώραις. 5. भ्रांत्वा विवस्वानय दक्षिणाशामालं्य सर्वत्र करपसारी। ऋत्विक्तो निःस्व इव प्रतस्थे वसूपलब्ध्यै धनदस्य वासं ॥ "The wandering Sun has gone to the South country and there scatter- ed his rays: now like a poor priest (who with the hope of alms in his heart has been holding out his hand to every passer-by) he goes to

Digitized by Google

OF KSHEMENDRA. 23

the North country to repair his beams (goes to the rich man's house to get wealth.)" This last example is from the Subhashitavali. It has a very modern ring. VII. MİLAVA KUVALAYA. 1. च्युतसुमनसः कुंदा पुष्पोङ्गमैरलसा हुमा मनसि च गिरं गृह्नंतीमे किरंति न कोकिलाः। अथ च सवितुः शीतोल्लासं लुनंति मरीचयो न च जरठतामालंबंते क्मोदयदायिनीं॥। VIII. GAUDA KUMBHAKARA. 1. लांगूलेन गभस्तिमान्वलयितः. A description of Hanumân crossing the straits.

IX. GANGAKA.

1. स कोपि प्रेमारई्र: प्रणयपरिपाकप्रचलितो विलासोऽक्णां देयात्सुखमनुपमं वो सृगदृशां। यदाकृतं दृष्टा पिदधति मुखं तूणविवर निरस्तव्यापारा भुवनजयिनः पंच विशिखाः ॥ Kshemendra quotes this verse as a praiseworthy âsirvachanam by "My own teacher Gangaka." X. CHANDAKA.

2. कृशः काण: खंजः श्रवणविकल: पुच्छरहित: क्षुधा क्षामो रूक्ष: पिठरककपालार्दितगल: । व्रणैः पूतिक्कितैः कृमिपरिवृतैरावृततनुः शुनीमन्वेति श्वा तमपि मदयत्येष मदनः ॥ Böhtlingk 1895 from Bhartrihari. 2. कृष्णेनांब गतेन ......... पायात्स वः केशवः. 3. खगोत्क्षिमरत्रैः

3. युद्धेषु भाग्यचपलेषु न मे प्रतिज्ञा देवं नियच्छति जयं च पराजयं च। एषैव मे रणगतस्य सदा प्रतिज्ञा पश्यंति यन्न रिपवो जघनं हयानाम् ।। "In battles Fortune goes now here, now there, and for them I will not answer. Fate gives victory and defeat to whom she will. This one thing I promise, that when I go down into the fight the enemy shall not look upon my horses' backs." XI. DiPAKA. 1 अयि विरहविचित्ते. 2 पुण्ये मामे. Bohtlingk 4102

Digitized by Google

24 ON THE AUCHITYÂLA MKÂRA

from Bhartrihari. a सितपटच्छन्नपालीकपालीं. B धूमोपकठ. 9 प्रवृत्तो. 3. इवेनांघिमहदारितोत्तरकरो. XII. DHARMAKÎRTI.

Of this poet Aufrecht writes as follows in the sixteenth volume of Weber's Indische Studien -

" Dharmakîrti is one of the oldest writers on Alamkara. A work of his, called Bauddhasamgati, is mentioned by Subandhu in the Vasa- vadattâ (p. 205, ed. Hall ). In all probability he is the Buddhist philosopher of that name who according to Wassiljew wrote a commen- tary on Dinnaga's Pramanasamuchchaya, as also the work Pramâna- varttika, Pramanayinischaya, and Prasannapâda. A half verse by the philosopher Dharmakirti is quoted in the chapter of the Sarvadarsana- samgraha that deals with Buddhism. Anandavardhana quotes Dharma- kirti in the Dhvanyaloka : the Sarngadharapaddhati gives one, and the Saduktikarnamritam eight of his verses." Six of the verses referred to here will be found in Aufrecht's paper. A seventh is the verse लावण्यद्रविणव्ययो, which, as Aufrecht notes, had already been given by Bohtlingk from the Kuvalayananda, without, of course, any author's name. Kshemendra in the book before us is now found to corroborate the statement of the Saduktikarnamritam as to the authorship of this verse, and so far to corroborate generally the statements of the Saduktikarnamritam as to the authors cited. लावण्यद्रविणव्ययो न गणितः क्लेशो महान्स्वीकृतः5 स्वच्छंदस्य सुखं जनस्य वसतश्चिताअंवरो® निर्मितः । एषापि स्वयमेव तुल्यरमणाभावाद्वराकी हता कोर्थश्चेतसि वेधसा विनिहितस्तन्व्यास्तनुं तन्वता। "He recked not of the store of beauty he spent on her or of the toil he took : he made her a fire of torment for people who were dwelling at their ease : she herself is doomed to sorrow as one who can never find a mate : say, what did the Creator propose to himself when he made this woman?" The verse is quoted in censure of the employment of the word -serr

'स्वरी कृत :- So also Aufrecht. Bohtlingk अर्जत :. ' Bohtlingk स्वच्छन्दं चरतो जनस्य हृदये. So also A with वसते for चरतो. 8 A and B स्वगुणानुरूपर मणाभावात्. •B. तन्वीमिर्मा तन्वता.

Digitized by Google

OF KSBEMENDRA. 25

which Kshemendra says has nothing to recommend it but the jingle with the words तनुं तनुते. The poet should have used some such word as सुन्दर्या: This shows that the reading of our book (and of the Sad- ukti) is undoubtedly the right one, as may be said also, I think, of the other variants presented. Other two verses-अमीषा प्राणानां and असतो नाभ्यर्थ्या :- which in the Skm. are ascribed to Dharmakîrti " belong," says Aufrecht, "to Bhar- trihari. Their appearance in the anthology under Dharmakirti is to be accounted for on the theory that the compiler of the Saduktikar- namritam took them from Dharmakirti's book on rhetoric without troubling himself to trace them further." Kshemendra in this book assigns six verses which now stand in Bhartrihari's Satakas to other authors, and claims at least one for himself, a state of things which makes us hesitate to accept Aufrecht's theory here. The alternative theory, that the book which passes under Bhartrihari's name is a late compilation, deserves renewed consideration. XIII. BHATTA NARAYANA. 1. महाप्रलयमारुतक्षुभित. 2. यो य: शस्तं. Both from the Venisamhara. XIV. PARIMALA.

1. आहारं न करोति नांबु पिबति स्वैणं न संसेवते शेते यत्सिकतासु मुक्तविषयञ्चंडातपं सेवते।

मन्ये मालवसिंह गूर्जरपतिस्तीत्रं तपस्तप्यते।।

" He neither eats nor drinks, and he abjures the society of woman : he lies on the sand, puts from him all worldly pleasures, and courts the hottest sun. Oh Lion of the House of Malva, it seems to me that this Gurjara King is doing penance in the forests of Marwar that he may be found worthy to touch the dust of your feet."

2. तत्र स्थितं स्थितिमता वरदेव दैवा- डृत्येन ते चकितचित्तमियंत्यहानि। उत्कंपिनि स्तनतटे हरिणेक्षणानां हारान् प्रनर्त्तयति यत्र भवत्प्रताप:।। "There, O good king ! thy servant got a footing, as fate would have it, and there he remained so many days, curious at heart-there, where thy fame sets dancing the pearls on the quivering breasts of the deer-eyed women." 4

Digitized by Google

26 ON THE AUCHITYALAMKARA

3. ममानि द्विषतां कुलानि समरे त्वत्खड् धाराकुले नाथास्मिन्निति बंदिवाचि बहुशो देव शुतायां पुरा। मुग्धा गूर्जरभूमिपालमहिषी प्रत्याशया पाथसः कांतारे चकिता विमुंचति महुः पत्युः कृपाणे दृशौ।। "The silly Gurjara Queen, as she wanders terror-struck in the forest ever and anon casts her eyes on her husband's sword to see if there be no water (URTT) there, bethinking herself in her heart how often in the days that are gone she has heard the bards say ' Great king, the hosts of your foes have gone down in the battle through which your sword's edge (धारा) swept.'" 4. हा गृंगारतरंगिणीकुलगिरे हा राजचूडामणे हा सौजन्यसुधानिधान हह हा वैदग्ध्यदुग्धोदधे। हा देवोज्जयिनीभुजंग युवतिप्रत्यक्षकंदर्प हा हा सद्ांधव हा कलामृतकर क्वासि प्रतीक्षस्व नः । "O Hill of the River of Love, O Crest Jewel of Kings, O Home of all Goodness, O Milky Ocean of Cleverness, O Lover of Ujjayinî, O ' thou that wert a living God of Love to young women, ( Kinsman to all the Good, O Brewer of the Nectar of the Arts, where O King, art thou gone : wait for me." These verses show that Parimala's lost poem probably present an almost contemporary record of one of the earlier struggles between the sovereigns of Malva and Gujarat. I will only conjecture here that the theme of the poem was that expedition in Gujarât despatched by Tailapa, under a General of the name of Barapa, "against Mularaja, the founder of the Chaulukya dynasty of Anahilapattana, who for some time was hard pressed, though according to the Gujarat chroniclers the General was eventually defeated with slaughter." " The striking verse in the Kavyaprakasa arere. सुता न पाठयति मां (p. 450, Calc. Ed. 1876) wears every appearance of being from the same work, for which we should be on the look out. XV. PARIVRAJAKA. 1. तपो न तस्तं वयमेव तप्ता भोगा न भुक्ता वयमेव भुक्त्ताः । जरा न जीर्णा वयमेव जीर्णा- स्तृष्णा न याता वयमेव याताः॥ This seems a better form of the verse which Bohtlingk, No. 4631, भोगा न कुक्ता: gives from Bhartrihari. Bhandarkar : Early History of the Dekkan, p. 59. See also the Râs Mâla, Cap. IV. to which Bhandarkar refers.

Google

OF KSHEMENDRA. 27

XVI. BHAȚȚA PRABHÂKARA.

This poet is already known only from Aufrecht's citation from the Sarngadharapaddhati of what is surely one of the prettiest compli- ments to beauty even a poet ever devised. या दृष्टा यैर्न वा दृष्टा मुषिता: सममेव ते। हृदयं हतमेकेषा- मन्येषां चक्षुषो: फलं ।। " She spoils indifferently those who see her and those who see her . not : these lose their hearts, those might as well have never had their eyes." 1. दिग्मातंगघटाभिषिक्तचतुराघाटा मही साध्यते सिद्धा सापि वदंत एव हि वयं रोमांचितः पश्यत। विप्राय प्रतिपादते किमपरं रामाय तस्मै नमो यस्मादाविरभूत्कथाड्गुतमिदं यत्रैव चास्तं गतम् ।। XVII. ŚRÎ PRAVARASENA. Two verses are quoted, which both occur in this writer's Setubandha. I, 2, and III, 20.

XVIII. BHATȚA BÂNA. Three verses by Bâna, the author of Kâdam- bari, are quoted. Two of these, 1. जयत्युपेन्द्र: and 2. स्तनयुगं, are from that book, and call for no remark. But the third is of extraordinary interest for us. It is the verse

3. हारो जलार्द्रवसनं नलिनीदलानि प्रालेयशीकरमुचस्तुहिनांशुभास:। यस्येन्धनानि सरसानि च चन्दनानि निर्वाणमेष्यति कथं स मनोभवाभिः॥। which now stands in the Amarusatakam ( No. 98). In his note Kshemendra tells us that this verse is part of a description of the state to which Kadambarî was reduced by the absence of Chandrâpida. It would appear then that Bana, in addition to the work known to us, treated the same theme, or part of the same theme, in verse : and with this clue we can assign to their place in such a composition more than one of the verses cited by Bana in the later anthologies. XIX. BHATȚA BHALLAȚA. मृत्योरास्यमिवाततं धनुरिवं मूर्छद्विषाश्चेषवः शिक्षा सा विजितार्जुना प्रतिलयं सवांगलभा गतिः।

. Digitized by Google

28 ON THE AUCHITYÂLAMKÂRA .

अंतः क्रौर्यमहो शठस्य मधुनो हा हारि गीतं सुखे व्याधस्यास्य यथा भविस्यति तथा मन्ये वनं निर्मृगम्. The use of singing or music as one of the weapons of the hunter is often referred to. Aufrecht quotes ten verses by this poet from the Śarngaddharapaddhati. XX. BHAVABHUTI. 1. पुरा यत्र स््रोतः पुलिन. Uttara R. Act. 2. योयम्व; पताकेयं Uttara R.Act. IV. 3. वृद्धास्ते न विचारणीयचरिताः Uttara R. Act. V. a तिष्ठति वर्नतां. B युद्धं स्नीदमने. Y अकुतोमुखान्यपि 8 इंद्रसूनुनिधन. In the heading to the second of these examples the poet is in both MSS, called Bhavabhûpati,

XXI. MAGHA. बुभुक्षितैर्व्याकरणं न भुज्यते न पीयते काव्यरस: पिपासितैः । न विद्यया केनचिदुज्ृतं कुलं हिरण्यमेवार्जय निष्फला: कलाः । "The hungry cannot feed upon grammar, or the thirsty satisfy themselves with the nectar of poetry. No man ever exalted his house by learning. Get money. Learning leads to nothing." Note in the Sisapalavadha. Bohtlingk 4484, from the Subhashitârnava, XXII. MÂTRIGUPTA.

नायं निशामुखसरोरुहराजहंस: कीरीकपोलसलकांततनुः शशांकः। आभाति नाथ तविदं दिवि दुग्धसिंधु- डिंडीरापैंडपरिपांडु यशस्त्वदीयम्।। Note that Kshemendra would seek to distinguish between Mâtri- gupta and Kalidasa. Compare Max Muller 'India: what can it teach us ?' p. 133. XXIII. RÂJAPUTRA MUKTÂPIDA. नीवारप्रसराभमुष्टिकवलैयों वर्द्धितः शैशवे पीतं थेन सरोजपच्पुटके होमावश्ेषं पयः। तं टृष्टा मदमंथरालिवलयव्यालोलगल्लं गज सोत्कंठं सभयं च पश्यति सुहुदूरे स्थितं तापसः ।। "From afar the hermit gazes with mingled love and fear at the mighty elephant, whose throat is encircled by swarms of bees heavy laden

Digitized by Google

OF KSHEMENDRA. 29

with the juice that exudes from its temples, and remembers how this is he whom at first he nourished with the tender tops of the rice-plant, and who drank from a leafy cup the milk that was over from the sacrifice." XXIV, YASOVARMADEVA. उत्पत्तिर्भेडकुले यक्भीष्ट तत्पद समाक्रांतं। भोगास्तथापि दैवात्सकृदपि भोकुं न लभ्यंते।। Yasovarman, according to Aufrecht (Z. D. M. G. 36, 521) wrote a drama, Ramabhyudaya, which is cited by Abhinavagupta. XXV. BHAȚȚA LAȚȚANA. श्ीष्मं द्विषंतु जलदागममर्थयंतां ते संकटप्रकृतयो विकटास्तडागाः। अब्धेस्त सुग्धशफरीचटुलाचलेंद्र- निष्कंपकुक्षिपयसी दूयमप्यचित्यं।। XXVI. RAJASEKHARA. 1. एतस्या: समरसंज्वर :. Balaramayana Act V.(p.121 Ben. Ed.) B प्रस्थंपच: पायसां. Ed. प्ोषप्रदः पायसां. प्रस्थंपच is given by BR. (compare also Bohtlingk's Smaller Dictionary) from schol. on p. 3. 2. 33, as a word for which a reference was not then available .- मणयः सर्वेपि. 2. कर्णाटीदशनांकितः शितमहाराष्ट्रीकटाक्षाहतः प्रौढांभ्रीस्तनपीडित: प्रणयिनीभूभंगवित्रासितः। लाटीवाहुाविवेष्टितश्च मलय स्रीत र्ज नीतर्जित: सोयं संप्रति राजशेखरकविर्बाराणसीं वांच्छति॥। Râjasekhara was perhaps not such a rake as he professes to be. The verse may go to show that similar autobiographical couplets, of which tradition has preserved a great many, may oftener be genuine than is sometimes supposed. 3. चिताचक्रं चंद्रः. 4. ज्यायान् धन्वी, Balaramayana Act IV. (p. 87). ताडकाताडकेण. कर्णाभ्यर्णस्फुरितपलितः 5. नाले शौर्यमहोत्पलस्य. 6. पौलस्त्य: प्रणयेन, Balaramayana Act II. (p. 36). 7. माणं सुंच. 8. यत्पार्वती हठ, Balaramayana Act I. (p. 19). 9. संबंधी पुरुभूभुजां 10. स्त्रीणां मध्ये. XXVII, MÂLAVA RUDRA. 1. अभिनववधूरोषस्वादः करीषतनूनपा- दसरलजनाश्लेषक्रूरस्तषारसमीरण: । गलितविभवस्याज्ञेवाद्य दुतिर्मसृणा रवे- र्विरहवनितावक्वल्लैव्यं विभर्ति निशाकरः॥ Given as by Bhâta in the Subhâshitahârâvali.

Digitized by Google

30 ON THE AUCHITYALAMKARA

2 पाथोदा: परिपूरयंति जगतीं रुद्धांबरा वारिभि: । भ्राम्यन्मंदर कूटकोटिघटनाभीतिब्रमत्तार कां प्राप्यैकां जलमानुषीं त्रिभुवने श्रीमानभूदच्युतः ।।' Aufrecht writes the name of this poet Malavarudra. But compare Malava Kuvalaya and Gauda Kumbhakara above. XXVIII. ŚRÎ VAKRA. 1. देवो जानाति सर्वे यदपि च तदपि खूमहे नीतिनिष्ठ सार्द्धे संधाय जालांतरधरणिभुजा निर्वृतो बांधवेन। म्लेच्छानुच्छिद्धि भिद्धि प्रतिदिनमयशो रुंद्धि विश्वं यशोभि: सोहन्वन्मेखलायां परिकलय करं कि च विश्वंभरायाम्।। This one verse is so far all that has been found of a poem-by a poet himself also otherwise unknown-which must contain a contemporary account of one of the early leagues of the Hindu princes against their Musalman invaders. Compare what has been said above of Parimala's lost work. Jalantara here is I presume Jullundur. XXIX. VARÂHAMIHIRA. क्षीणशनंद्रो विशति तरणेर्मेडलं मासि मासि लब्धा कांचित्पुनरपि कलां दूरदूरानुवर्ती। संपूर्णश्रेत्कथमपि तरा स्पर्द्धयोदेति भानो- नो दौर्जन्याद्विरमति जडो नापि दैन्यादूयरंसीत्।। "The waning moon enters the orb of the sun at each month's end, and having there renewed his fires goes each day further from his helper : nay, when his fulness comes, as come it will, vies in the eastern sky with the setting orb of day. Verily, verily the cold-blooded man never leaves off his ingratitude and his meanness." Given in Vallabhadeva's Sabhashitavali as by Dhârâdhara. XXX. BHAGAVÂN MAHARSHI VYÂSA. सत्यं मनोरमा रामा: सत्यं रम्या विभूतयः । कि त मत्तांगनापांगभंगलोलं हि जीवितं।। " Doubtless woman is a pleasant thing and wealth too: but life abides no longer than the glance shot from the corner of her eye by a love-sick girl." Bohtlingk 6733, from the Subhashitarnava, with मनोरमा: कामा: in a. XXXI. SYAMALA. चुंबनसक्त: The only Syamala we know of is the Syamala who was Bana's cousin. Hall's Vasavad. Introd. p. 41.

Digitized by Google

OF KSHEMENDRA. 31

XXXII. ŚRI HARSHA. उददामोस्कलिकां, Ratnav. Act II., B, अविरलै: 2. कंठे कृत्तावशेषं, Ratnav. Act II. 3. नष्टं वर्षवरैः, Ratnav. Act II. a अकृत्वा. 4. परिम्लान. Ratnav. Act B परिमलनम्. 8 बिसिनी- पत्रशयनम् विश्रांतविभहकथो, Ratnav., Vishk. To the twelve compositions by Kshemendra which were already known 10 Schonberg, in his paper on the Kavikanthabharana, added other eight, which he found quoted or referred to in that book. His list is as follows :- 13 Śaśivanśa, 14 (Padya) Kâdambari, 15 Chitrabhârata, 16 Lâvanyavatî, 17 Kanakajanakî, 18 Deśopadeśa, 19 Muķtâvali, 20 Amritataranga. Three of these are quoted in our book also, where the Chitrabharata is called a Nataka, and the Lavanyavati and the Muktavali are called . Kavyas. In addition the following new names occur, Avasarasara, Baudhavadanalata, Nîtilatâ, Munimatamîmânsâ, Lalitaratnamâlâ, Vinayavalli, Vâtsyâyanasûtrasâra. Of the books in the earlier list the Chaturvargasamgraha is the only one quoted under the same name.

I should make some small amends to the Society for a dull paper if I could adequately describe the scene where I got this book, and the impression that scene made upon me. In an upper chamber of a by- street in Ahmedabad were gathered over a hundred of the common people, listening eagerly to their word of life, as that was communicated by Rajendrasuri to his more immediate disciples. A little company of women sat apart, but not so as to be out of hearing of the teacher.

10 (1) Brihatkathâmanjari. (2) Bhâratamanjari. (3) Kalâvilâsa. (4) RA- mâyaņakath&sâra. (5) Daeavatâracharita. (6) Samayamâtrika. (7) Vyâs&- shtaka. (8) Suvrittatilaka. (9) Lokaprakâśa. (10) Nitikalpataru. (11) Châ- rucharyaśataka. (12) Chaturvargasamgraha. '

Google

32 ON THE AUCHITYALAMKARA OF KSHEMENDRA.

At the end of our conversation a young Rajpoot, a rich young man , as I could judge from his dress, who had been an intent observer of all that passed between his teacher and myself, rose from the crowd, put his folded hands to his head, and told me in his own language that he had one request to make to me. Between Râjendrasûri and another teacher then in Ahmedabad there were vital differences-as to the kind of garments men desiring salvation should wear, and as to whether in the evening hymn they should recite the three verses only, or four. Would I undertake to solve his doubt ? I put him off with a jest which I have sometimes regretted since. But I came away with new wonder at the strangeness of human life : and, as I hope, with fresh sympathy for all of the one family who in every place are thus feeling after God, if haply they may find Him.

Four Saushrit vese1 ( Heant uy lart! )ou so irwm uto heel aud Musunt high abore tw (avo:

E slavi f hassim , wEat'meed shrusd

Digitized by Google

4 Im our sichnesses thiuselp a paysiain

NOTE ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI.

" Patanjali's date, B.C. 150, may now be relied on."-Bhandarkar in his Early History of the Dekkan, p. 7. So too Kielhorn, though he was more directly concerned with the question of the authenticity of the text of the book, maintains that " we are bound to regard the text of the Mahabhashya as given by our MSS. to be the same as it existed about 2000 years ago." (Indian Antiquary, IV., p. 107, and V., p. 241.) I will state very briefly why I think the question must still be regarded as open. Kalhana's verse :- चंद्राचार्यादिभिर्लब्धादेश तस्मात्तदागमम्। प्रवर्तितं महाभाष्य स्वंच व्याकरणं कृतम् ॥ Râjâtarangiņî, I., 176 (p. 7, Calc. Ed., 1835), appears to me to have exercised what can only be described as a perni- cious influence on this controversy. In itself it contains no indication that Kalhana so much as had Patanjali's Mahabhâshya in his mind when writing the passage. But if we grant, for the sake of argument, Prof. Weber's contention (Ind. Stud., 5, 166), that the transaction Kalhana is referring to is clearly the same as that spoken of in Bhar- trihari's Vâkyapadîya, and grant also, under the same reserve, that it follows that Kalhana here is speaking of Patanjali's work, the verse even then cannot bear the weight which is sought to be put upon it. It is not open to us to quote Kalhana as corroborating Bhartrihari's statement, when it is clear that, writing in the 12th century, he is, if he is referring here to Patanjali at all, dishing up for us and doctoring a story which he must have got directly or indirectly from Bhartrihari or from the same sources as Bhartrihari. Still less is it justifiable to transfer to Kalhana the credit that would attach to any statement made in the Vâkyapadiya as to the date at which this mysterious transaction took place. It is Kalhana, and not Bhartrihari, who here seems to connect Abhimanyu of Kashmere with Patanjali's commen- tary : and I do not understand why so much weight should be attach- ed to this one statement, occurring as it does in a part of the Rajataran- gini which, as Buhler puts it (Report, p. 39), is full of improbabilities 5

Digitized by Google

34 ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI.

and absurdities. A similar reasoning holds good of Kalhana's second verse :- देशांतरादागमय्य व्याचक्षाण: क्षमापतिः। प्रावर्तयत विच्छिन्नं महाभाष्यं स्वमंडले।। Râjâtarangiņi IV., 487 (p. 58, Calc. Ed.) I notice that Max Müller ( Note, p. 335 ), suggests a doubt as to whether Kalhana is here referring to Patanjali's Mahabhâshya. But if we grant that he is, here too his statement must be checked by the passage in Bhartrihari. And as soon as that is done it becomes at once apparent that on Kalhana alone rests the responsibility of divid- ing the story as it stands in Bhartrihari into two parts and separating the two by centuries. Bhartrihari tells us that to Chandra and his school was due the revived study of the Mahabhâshya. Kalhana puts Chandra in the first century, for Abhimanyu's greater glory, and as he cannot ignore the fact that something of the kind occurred in the reign of king Jayâpida ( A.D. 755-786), he invites us to believe that twice in the history of Kashmere did the king of the country inter- fere to set the Mahabhashya on its feet again. Of the two passages the second appears to me to be far more deserving of credit than the first : and the विच्छिन्नं (which need not be construed with स्वमंडले)1 refers to the state from which Chandra had (recently ?) rescued the book, not to a state into which it had been permitted in Kashmere to fall centuries after his benevolent activity."

1 As for example Kielhorn does. " The King having sent for interpreters [ reading with the Paris edition aTn ] brought into use in his realm the Mahabhashya, which had ceased to be studied' (in Kashmere, and was there fore no longer understood)." Indian Antiquary, V., p. 243. It may be worth noting that aydf is the ordinary expression in the case of the first patron of a book. Thus for example in the colophon to a MS. of HAla in my possession Satavahana is called the 974 of the Kalapa grammar. Our word therefore should be translated, as Kielhorn does here, or as Max Muller in his Note, p. 335, "introduces": and this verse in itself does not suggest that what Jayapida did was to " re-establish " (Max Müller, p. 334) the Mahabhashya. In his reply to this paper Professor Bhândarkar takes this sentence to mean that I understand Kalhana to put Chandra in Jayapida's reign, and that I accept that as a fact on Kalhana's authority. This of course leads straight to the absurdity of Bhartrihari's having mentioned a fact which took place 105 years after his death. As my words have been made matter of public comment I must leave them as they were written. But I take this opportunity of saying that, for my own part, I entirely repudiate the construction Bhandar- kar puts on them. I am concerned here only with what Kalhana's meaning

Digitized by Google

ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI. 35

Better texts of the Rajataranginî, and a careful collation of the two verses, as they ought to be read, with Bhartrihari would, I think, strengthen this position. I have little doubt that the Parvata of Bhartrihari's verse is, as Max Muller suggests, no other than the hill of Chittore, which was a centre of learning for the southern country, (Compare my First Report, p. 47). I think it is not impossible that the words लब्धादेशं तस्मान्तदागमं, which from the crux of Raj. I., 176, conceal Bhartrihari's own phrase पर्वतादागमं लब्ध्वा. If Kielhorn's conjectural emendation लब्ध्वा देशान्तरात्तदागमम् be ever confirmed, it will become still more obvious that the two verses have one and the same origin. They will then almost textually agree.

But if we are thus really dependent on Bhartrihari's statement which contains no note of time, we are entitled to range further than Goldstücker and Bhandarkar do in their search for events and names which will suit certain passages in the Mahabhâshya itself, where Patanjali, as they hold, is referring to contemporaneous or recent history.8 I will not discuss the question here as to whether these instances really do, in Gold- stücker's words, "concern the moment at which Patanjali wrote." (Pân. p. 230.) I think it is forgotten in that argument that Patanjali could trust to the practical acquaintance with the language or literature which his pupils possessed, much as an English grammarian might without risk of confusion illustrate after having given the rule, our past and present by two such phrases, as " In six days God made Heaven and Earth," and "This people perishes with hunger."

Four passages in all, so far as I know, have been adduced from the Mahâbhâshya itself as supplying definite chronological data for the time of Patanjali. The first is the note on Pân, v. 3, 99. Gold- stücker, it is true, who brought this passage to light, did not contend that it proves more than that Patanjali did not live before the first

was: and I still think that he got his fafey from the story he read in Bhar- trihari, and that his a97 refers to something that happened in Jayapida's time. He may have mixed the two things up together hopelessly: but I desired to suggest that his own words do not necessarily preclude the supposi- tion that he himself understood that there was an interval between the his- torical fafesard of the Mahabhashya and Jayapida's action .- [Notę added when publishing.] 3 Goldstücker treated this subject in his 'Pânini: his place in Sanskrit Literature,' pp. 227-238. The references for Bhandarkar are Indian Antiquary, p. 299, II., pp. 59, 69, 91 and 238.

Digitized by Google

36 ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI.

king of the Maurya dynasty, who was Chandragupta, and who lived 315 B.C .; or, possibly, "if we are to give a natural interpretation to his words," that he lived after the last king of this dynasty, or, in other words, later than 189 before Christ. If the passage stood alone then, and there were no such thing as cumulative effect in arguments of this kind, the inference sought to be drawn from Patanjali's note on Pân., v. 3, 99, might be allowed to pass without challenge. But it will not be denied that this suggestion as to a date before which Patanjali may not be supposed to have lived, when taken in connection with a date (Abhimanyu's time), removed from it by two centuries only, and regarded, on what grounds we have just seen, as a date after which he may not be supposed to have lived, has done much to strengthen the conviction that here or hereabout we must look for the time of Patanjali. Yet I think it can be shown, beyond all manner of doubt, that this passage has nothing whatever to do with the matter in hand, and that, as far as it is concerned, we are as free-or shall I rather say hampered ?- with regard to the upper date to be assigned to Patanjali, as I have contended we still are with regard to his lower date. Panini's rule is जीविकार्थे चापण्ये. On which the note is अपण्य इत्युच्यते तत्रेदं न सिध्यति। शिवः स्कन्दो विशाख इति। कि कारणम्। मौर्ये- र्हिरण्यार्थिभिरर्चाः प्रकल्पिताः। भवेत्। तासु न स्याव्। यास्त्वेताः संप्रति पूजार्थाः। तासु भविष्यति. Goldstucker's explanation of this passage is as follows :- "If a thing,' says Pânini, 'serves for a livelihood, but is not for sale, it has not the affix ka.' This rule Patanjali illustrates, with the words 'Siva Skanda Visâkha,' meaning the idols that represent here divinities, and at the same time give a living to the men who possess them, while they are not for sale. And 'why?' he asks. 'The Mauryas wanted gold, and therefore established religious festivities.' Good, Pân- ini's rule may apply to such (idols as they sold); but as to idols which are hawked about (by common people) for the sake of such worship as brings an immediate profit, their name will have the affix ka." " Whether or not," Goldstücker goes on to say, "this interesting bit of history was given by Patanjali ironically, to show that even affixes are the obedient servants of kings, and must vanish before the idols which they sell, because they do not take the money at the same time that the bargain is made-as poor people do-I do not know." In the rest of the passage Goldstucker draws his inference in words that I have already given.

Google

ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI. 37

Could Patanjali have thus anticipated the super grammalicam story ? I thought not: and it was my conviction that there must be some mistake here which led me to examine closely the passage Goldstücker quotes. As a result, I think I can show that Goldstücker misunder- stood and mistranslated that passage from top to bottom. I need hardly say that it requires all the courage Max Müller recommends thus to challenge that mighty and indignant shade. But I have put Goldstücker's explanation fairly before the reader. I will now say how I understand the passage. If I am right my translation will, I think, justify itself : and I shall, I hope, be judged to have done some small service with regard to a question on which much depends. qoy eg- sa then tells us that a doubt is about to be suggested with regard to the word arqoa occurring in the sutra under comment. " Siva, Skanda, Visakha," are not three words illustrating Panini's rule. They form the clause or sentence referred to by the ₹T preceding. For तत्रेदं न सिध्यति is the doubt of which we have been forewarned, and must be translated: "In that case [if arqoa is to be part of the rule] the following expression is not obtained [i.e., must be declared to be bad grammar, while, as a matter of fact, it is in common use, and so it is . the correctness of the sutra that is in peril.] But if शिव: स्कंदो विशाख; or स्कंदो: विशाख: as Kaiyyata, as I think rightly, reads, be an expression that prima facie throws doubt on the correctness of the sûtra, we must look in it for an indication that the Skanda of this passage is an idol, and not the god of that name. FhT: in itself cannot be a form of doubtful authority. The doubt is as to whether in a particular connec- tion the form Faan: should not be used. The word we are in search of can neither be RTa: nor h .. It must, therefore, be faar:, and we have next to see whether that word, when used as an adjective to Fh4:, of its own force suggests that the refer- ence is to an image or representation, as when we talk of a sitting Madonna or a sleeping Venus. But a reference to any dictionary will show that such a meaning is one of the best authenticated senses of the word विशाखः. स्कंदो विशाखः means, "A Skanda in act to shoot," and that is the phrase given here as affording an example of a form which apparently under this rule would have to be condemned. "Why?" (किं कारणं SC. न सिध्यति), "It is for gain that Mauryas make images." The Skanda in act to shoot must be an image : and as it is notorious that images are vendible things it ought not to be possible to speak of a स्कंदो विशाखः, but only of a स्कंदको विशाखः So far the doubt. And now the Doubter answers himself. raa "Good."

Digitized by Google

38 ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI.

Vendible images made by the Mauryas are, as a class, by the operation of the word arqoa in this sutra, taken out of one of the categories of things falling under the general rule which enjoins the omission of affix ka. तासु न स्यात् "Let it be admitted that so far to them the rule ar ag should not apply, but that the affix ka should be used. यास्त्वेताः संप्रति पूजार्था: But whatever images among these even, are from the beginning intended for worship and not for sale, तास भविष्यति to them that rule will apply, and the affix ka will be barred." The extent of the difference between Goldstücker's explanation of this passage and that now offered may be gauged by the last clause here, "and the affix ka will be barred," which stands for Goldstucker's "their names will have the affix ka." But Kaiyyata puts beyond all dispute the question, as to what is the subject of the clauses Farg and तासु भविष्यति, when he says, यास्तु विक्रीयंते तास न भवति शिवकान्वि- क्रीणीत इति. The न स्यात of Patanjali means that the word in question should have the affix : the भविष्यति that it will not. Two points in this explanation require a further note, though for- tunately any judgment with regard to them does not affect the argu- ment. I have so far not met with any native support for the parti- cular construction put above on the words स्कंदो विशाख: That- with or without fera :- these words refer to the clause immedi- ately preceding, and not to the sutra, and contain therefore a form or forms whose currency throws doubt upon the sûtra, I believe to be certain. But the shastris I have been able to consult-in particular Mr. Râja- râm Shastri, the learned grammarian attached to Elphinstone College- agree in thinking that the context of the whole passage is sufficient to show that idols are meant here : and they take the three words Siva, Skanda, Visakha, in the current acceptation of three names of images. That theirs is an old view is shown by the way in which the passage is treated in the Siddhanta Kaumudi, where faeTr: is quietly dropped, and areaa: substituted for it. I put forward that part of my explana- tion therefore only tentatively, and am quite prepared to find that there I am wrong. It might have been the more prudent course to hold it back: but I confess I believe it is right, and am unwilling to abandon it. The India Office photozincograph of Kaiyyata and one of Kielhorn's MSS. omit fara :. *Kaiyyata's own note on this passage is attached to the phrase यास्त्वेताः संप्रति पूजार्था: । तास भविष्यति in which, as Nágojîbhatta puts it, Patanjali "indicates an example for the sû- + As does also the MS. of the Mahabhashya in the Alwar Library .- [Note added when publishing. ]

Google

ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI. 39

सूत्रस्योदाहरणं दर्शयति-that is, I take it, states circumstances under which it will come into play without giving an actual exam- ple. If Kaiyyata then-whose note runs in full यास्त्वेता इति । याः परिगृह्य गृहाङ्ृहमटन्ति तास्व्रित्यर्थ : । यास्तु विक्रीयन्ते तासु न भवति । शिवका- न्विक्रीणीत इति-illustrates his own note of that part of the passage by an example of the converse case (यास्तु विक्रीयन्ते &c.,) he is not to be taken as repeating Patanjali's illustration of the doubt that went beforehand, and confirming the reading there. In such a context a different illustration seems called for. The whole result is that "Skando Visakha" is a phrase which may or may not be right, according to the context, while " Sivakân vikrînîti" is imperative. I do not therefore think that we are to see in Kaiyyata's example शिवकान्विक्रीणीते proof that he read fera: in his text of the Mahabhashya. I am more disposed to see in it the source of the subsequent corruption of that text. The quotation just made from Kaiyyata will illustrate the other point on which a doubt may be entertained as to the correctness of the translation I have given. What is the subject of srafea in Kaiy- yata's sentence? Goldstucker supplied "common people," whom he next contrasted with the royal dynasty of the Mauryas. But is it not the Mauryas themselves who are here represented as setting apart for purposes of peripatetic worship some of the images they make? I believe that to the present day the makers of idols contrive that their profession shall pay the same double debt. That seems to me the more natural construction: and so also in Patanjali's note यास्त्वेता: seems to me to mean "whichever among these." I do not however dispute that gar: here may refer to images in general (अर्चाः) and not to images made by Mauryas (मौर्यकल्पितार्चाः), or that अटन्ति may mean "people wander" and not "they wander." I will only add that संप्रति पूजार्था: must be taken as two words, though both Goldstucker and Kielhorn (Ed., p. 429) take them as one. संप्रति does not qualify पूजा, and there is no question here of "such worship as brings an immediate profit " (Goldstücker's translation). What is insisted on is that the affix ka will be barred in all cases where the images have from the beginning been meant for worship and not for sale. Compare Nagojibhatta's gloss- संप्रति पूजार्थाः। संप्रति स्वनिर्माणकालमेव फलजनिका या पूजा जीविका- प्रदत्वेन तदर्था इत्यर्थस्तदाह। या परिगृह्ेति. There is, therefore, I contend, no such contrast between the Mauryas and common people as Goldstücker discovered in this passage: and

Digitized by Google

40 ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI.

with that vanishes the only foundation for his belief that the Mauryas intended here are the dynasty of that name. They are a guild or caste of idol-makers, as Weber pointed out was apparently Nagojibhatta's explanation. (Compare Weber, Indische Stüdien, p. 150). I ought to add that Weber also noted that sraf: must not be translated, as Gold- stücker does, by "religious festivals." I am not quite certain how far Weber intends his translation to be a correction of Goldstücker's. I notice that he puts, "Auf diese passt die Regel nicht," for Gold- stücker's "Pânini's rule may apply to such." But he does not, as in the other case, call attention to this as a correction : though, if it is meant for a correction, it is a very important one. I mention the matter, because I am of course anxious to yield priority to a scholar eminent no less for his fairness than for his learning and achievements for any part of the foregoing explanation which he may see reason to claim as his own. Of the three remaining passages in the Mahabhashya which are relied on, that cited by Bhandarkar इह पुष्पमित्रं याजयाम :- is I think the only one which, as matters stand at present, really concerns us. Goldstücker it is true has shown that Patanjali illustrates a vârttika of Katyayana according to which the imperfect should be used when the fact related is ' out of sight, notorious, but could be seen by the person who uses the verb,' by the two clauses अरुण द्यवन: साकेतं । अरुणद्यवनो माध्यिकान् "the Yavanas besieged Ayodhya: the Yavanas besieged the Mâdhyamikas." To these two passages the' doubt I have hinted above as to the validity of the major premiss in this argument appears specially applicable. Is it not a perfectly reasonable view to suppose that the varttika is illustrated by clauses which, taken along with it; serve their purpose apart altogether from the time at which the gram- marian lived? To suppose in other words that the user (eThT) whose relation to the time and circumstances of the action is specitied is not necessarily, or even probably, Patanjali. Is this not indeed just what Nagojibhatta means when he says that we are to gather from the clause itself that the speaker is contemporaneous with the action- अरुणदित्युदाहरणे तु तुल्यकाल: प्रवर्तत इति बोध्यम्.

But further discussion of this point here may well be waived in the absence so far of any information as to the events referred to. Havoc has already been made of Goldstücker's Buddhist sect of Mâdhyamikas : and we do not know either that the 'Yavanas' besieged 'Saketa' in the time of Menanders, or that they did not besiege that city more than once in the centuries that followed. In the case of Bhandar-

Google

ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI, 41

kar's example it seems to me to be more probable than not, that the whole context-the illustration itself I regard as open to the same reasoning as the other two -- points to the conclusion that Patanjali lived at the time, and perhaps at the court, of Pushpamitra, But if that be so there were more Pushpamitras, or Pushyamitras, than the king who reigned in the second century before Christ, There was a Pushyamitra, who lived at the time to which recent speculation appears to the present writer to be slowly but surely referring Patanjali,5 In the Bhitari Lat insoription it is mentioned that Skandagupta, "the son of Kumaragupta, who was the son of Chandragupta, who was the son of Samudragupta, who was the son of Chandragupta, who was the son of Ghatotkacha, who was the son of Maharaja Sri Gupta, ". the founder of the later Gupta dynasty, conquered Pushyamitra समुक्तिबल कोषातपुष्यभित्रं च जित्वा. This point has been hitherto obscured from the faot that in Bhao Daji's revised translation of this inscription, published in the tenth Volume of our Journal, p. 59, 'Pushya ' is, perhaps by a printer's error, enclosed in brackets as if it were doubtful or conjectural. It is not so in Bhao Daji's own transcript which follows : and Dr. Bhagvanlal Indraji, to whom I owe this reference, and who it was that obtained the transcript on which Bhao Daji worked, assures me that the reading is clearly as I have given above. (Bhao Daji read समुदितिबल कोषम्पुष्यमित्रं गृहीत्वा). The Pushya- mitra against whom Skandagupta had to move all his forces, and employ all his treasure, must have been a formidable opponent ; and it seems to me that it is open to any one who admits that Patanjali is referring to a living Pushyamitra to prefer this one to that.

5 I can only refer here to the discovery that Kshemendra does not distin- guish between Panini the grammarian and Panini the poet, and to the evidence adduced by Max Muller from the works of the Chinese pilgrim I'tsing, Note, p. 347 ; and my Reports I. p. 39, and II. p. 61.

Google

Google

AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH.

I took the opportunity of a recent visit to Kotah in Rajputana to examine and take a fresh rubbing of the inscription at Kansua, near that town, of which I now offer a revised transcript and translation. Attention was first called to this interesting and important memorial of antiquity by Colonel Tod, who published a translation in an Appendix to Vol. I. of his Annals of Rajasthan. Dr. F. Kielhorn contributed to Vol. XIII. of the Indian Antiquary a transcript of the original text, with a short abstract of the contents. I hope it may be permitted to as warm an admirer as Tod's Book ever had to say, what is indeed the bare truth, that on this occasion the trans- lation given to him by his shastris presents hardly a single feature in common with the original. Dr. Kielhorn's transcript had already made so much clear. But the inscription is of a nature to warrant & full translation : and as my rubbing supplies a considerable number of corrections it does not seem superfluous to give, along with the version which follows, a revised transcript. Kielhorn has pointed out that the alphabet used in this inscription is essentially the same as that of Dr. Bühler's Jhâlrâpâthan inscriptions published with facsimiles in Vol. V. of the Indian Antiquary. A difference which Kielhorn draws attention to is that in the Kotah inscription middle long a " is denoted by a wedge-shaped sign placed after the consonant, not by the sign placed above it." It has to be added that the wedge-shaped sign in question is hardly, or rather not at all, distinguishable in form from another wedge which both in the Jhalrapathan and in the Kotah inscriptions is a constituent part of the signs for the letters and . In the eighth line of Dr. Bühler's fac- simile of the first Jhalrapathan inscription the word एत्वंप्रवृत्युज््वलज्वला supplies in close juxtaposition the syllables a and sar. It will be .. seen that both have the wedge. The second character differs from the first in that there the wedge is drawn out from the thin end by a curve above the line into the "diminutive trident," as Bühler calls it, which is the ordinary sign for middle long a in the Jhalrapathan inscriptions. For the letter compare the word aere in the second line of the same facsimile, where, however, the wedge has got to look like a mere continuation of the top line. 7

Digitized by Google

44 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH.

The wedge then being already a constituent part of the sign for T and in this alphabet a difficulty arose when, as here, it came to be used also for middle long a. The alphabet, as it previously existed, indicated the expedient made use of in the Kotah inscription. While after other letters long a is written by the simple wedge, after and ₹ the wedge is drawn out in a curve going above the line, though not to the same extent as in the older inscriptions. The only other characters which appear to call for remark are those for middle short and long i. The two are differentiated, as in other Sanskrit alphabets, not by the relative position each occupies to its consonant, nor by any material difference in the shape of the sign, but by the direction, to the right or left, the curve takes from the initial point, which is, as a rule, somewbat thicker than the rest of the character. The neglect of the distinctions I have noticed has, I think, led Kielhorn to correct मणी V.3 into मणि, विकटा V. 4 into विकट, and Fufe V. 9 into Fvet. In all three cases the right reading would appear to be on the stone. This inscription is dated in the 796th year of the Lords of Malava. It is probable that the Jhalrapathan inscription, which is dated in the 747th year of an unnamed era, is to be referred to the same method of computing time. The slight difference in the alphabet to which atten- tion has been drawn is of the kind that might develop in the fifty years which, on this hypothesis, would separate the two. Neither the Sivagana of our inscription nor the Durgagana of the Jhalrapathan in- scription is spoken of as a sovereign monarch:1 and when we find one spoken of as ruling at Kotah, under a Maurya Emperor, in the year 796 of the Lords of Malava, and the other referred to as ruler in the year 747, of a town only seventy miles to the south, which has always been very closely connected with Kotah, it seems natural to suppose that "Durgagana," and "Sivagana," are of the same stock. If this be so, it is to be noted that the want of any reference on the Jhalrapathan inscription speaks of an era which at the time had wide and undisputed currency.

1 Differently Kielhorn, who carries the line of Maurya Emperors given here from Dhavala through a Chirantana to Samkuka, who was the father of the Sivagana of our inscription. A reference to either transcript will however show, I think, that it is the friendship existing between Dhavala and Śamkuka which is referred to, and that chirantana is not a proper name at all.

Digitized by Google

AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 45

It can be shown that this era of the Lords of Malwa is no other than that now known as the Vikramaditya era, and that it was in use under this or some such similar name before 544 A. D., the year in which, according to Mr. Fergusson's ingenious theory, the Vikra- mâditya era was first invented. When I was at Jhalrapathan I was told by the Brahmans of that place that they could trace their lineage back to a body of immigrants from the west country, part of whom halted at Dasapura, while their own progenitors pushed seventy miles further to the east, and finally settled where I found their descendants living. Dasapura, they added, was the old name of the village now called Mandosar near the station of that name on the Rajputana-Malwa Railway. It will be seen that this identification, which is an important one, was confirmed by the inscription about to be referred to. Dasapura as the name of a town in Malwa occurs in the Hitopadesa. I knew that the village of Mandosar contained an old inscription' which was probably of very great importance : and what I heard from the Jhalrapathan Brahmans did not diminish my anxiety to make out a visit to the place. Unfortunately that proved impracticable at the time. I was able however to supply Pandit Bhagvanlal with funds for the journey : and he has put me in possession of his rubbing and transcript. The Mandosar inscription refers to a temple built by a guild of weavers, immigrants from the Lat country, who had been hospitably received at Dasapura, whither they had been attracted by the report of the virtues of the then ruler of that town, Bandhuvarman, son. of that ornament of kings, Visvavarman.3 But while Bandhuvarman

2 I heard of it from Dr. Bhagvanlal, who got his information from Mr. J. F. Fleet, into whose hands a rough copy, made at the time by an engineer employed in the constraction of the Railway, was finally put. The inscription is an extremely quaint one, and I should much like to publish it in full. But my friend Mr. Fleet, who has since obtained his own facsimile, destines the in- scription for his forthcoming Gupta volume : and in deference to whatever may be his rights of treasure-trove in the matter I willingly refrain from doing more now than adducing what is necessary to the matter in hand. The chronological speculations above are however my own. 3 The word I have translated ruler is parthiva. If the names of all the rulers of Dasapura ended in varman (compare our Sivagana and Durgagana above) we may have here a clue to the Parthivo Rantivarman at whose court the Mudrarakshasa was written.

Digitized by Google

46 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH.

ruled over Dasapura, the Earth "with the four seas for her girdle, and Meru and Kailasa for her fair great breasts," was under the sway of Kumaragupta. And this temple was erected- मालवानां गणस्थित्या यात शतचतुष्टये। त्रिनवत्यधिकाब्दानां- "when four hundred and ninety-three years from the establishment [in the country ?] of the tribes of the Malavas had passed away." Whether ganasthiti here has the meaning I have suggested for it may be matter of future discussion. I think it will not be disputed that in any case we have here the same era as that of our Kotah inscription. What is the era in the 494th year of which Kumaragupta was ruling the wide earth? This is a question to which I take it there can be but one answer. It is the era now known as that of Vikramâditya. This can perhaps be most effectively demonstrated by beginning at the end, and assuming for the sake of argument what I desire to prove. Kumaragupta then, let us take it, was reigning in the year 494 of the Malava era, that is, of the Vikramâditya era, that is, in the year A. D. 438. Kumaragupta's earliest and latest known dates, in the era of his House, are 98 and 129, that is, the years A. D. 407 and 448. On our hypothesis then the Mandosar inscription falls easily within the time at which Kumaragzpta is known to have been reigning : and there is no other era known to us which will give us the same result. The Malava era and the Vikramaditya era are therefore one and the same. It is taken for granted in the above that the initial year of the Gupta era is A. D. 319. But with Oldenberg and Bhandarkar I hold that no apology is required for such an assumption. Those who still hesitate may rather fairly be challenged to show how any other theory of the Gupta era can be made to fit in with the Mandosar inscription. Mr. Fergusson attempted to get rid of the chronological difficulties attaching to King Vikrama of popular story, by the theory that the as- tronomers who calcalated for the monarch who was Kalidasa's patron, an era to be called after his name, took as the date round which it should pivot A. D. 544, " the year in which the great battle of Korur was fought," but called that year Samvat 600, not Samvat 1, of the new method of reckoning. While the theory, as so expressed, must now, I think, be abandoned, it remains quite possible that Fergusson's solution of the chronological difficulties referred to may nevertheless "turu out to be in the main correct." But in that case what happened

Digitized by Google

AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 47

was not that Vikramaditya's astronomers were so 'careful to provide a reckoning for past, as well as for present and future time, as Fer- gusson's theory would make them out to be. Either Vikramaditya was personally concerned in restoring, not establishing, the old era of the kings of Malava :* or the common people forgot in his glory all the other kings who had ever ruled that land. In or after his time the years took their name from him, as July took that new name from Divus Iulius. It must not be put out of sight, however, that we may any day discover that Vikramaditya, as a name of the Malava era, is older than it has yet been found to be, and that Bühler is right in still holding to the belief that the Vikrama era, " which begins 56 B. C. was really established by a king of that name who lived before the beginning of the Christian era."5 That is the natural explanation of the name, and, as not unfrequently happens, it may ultimately turn out to be the correct one. To come back to our inscription, the year in which it is dated cor- responds, if the foregoing be correct, to A. D. 740. Of the two villages set apart for the maintenance for ever of the temple, the name of one, Chaoni, can be seen close to Kotah, in the map of the Trigonometrical Survey. I have not been able to identify the other. It would be interesting, and is perhaps possible, to trace the fortunes of an endowment so solemnly set apart.

TRANSCRIPT. ऑ नमः शिवाय ओं

1. नमः स्सकलसंसारसागरोत्तारहेतवे। तमोगर्त्ताभिसंपातहस्तालम्बाय शम्भवे।।

त्नित्यस्थैस्सान्धकारा: क्वचिदपि निभृतैः फाणिपैम्भोगभागैः।+Lino 1 ends. सोष्माणो नेचभाभि: क्वचिदतिशिशिरा जहुकान्याजलौघै- रित्थं भावैर््विरुद्धैरपि जनितमुदः पान्तु शम्भोर्ज्टा वः ।।

4 As Tribhuvanamalla had again to do in 1182 A. D. when the Saka era had for the time in its turn displaced the older method of computation. Sco references given by Max Muller, ' India : What can it teach us ?' p. 285, note 1. 5 Max Muller, ' India: What can it teach us?' page 285. Vorse 1. a नम: स्सकल sic.

Digitized by Google

48 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH.

3. भोगीन्द्रस्य फणामणिद्युतिमिलन्मौलीन्दुलोलांशवो

मुक्त्ताकारमरुन्नदीजलकणैराकीर्ण्णशोभा: क्वचि- चेरथं शाश्वतभूषणव्यतिकरा: शम्भोर्ज्जीटा: पान्त वः ॥ tLine 2 ends 4. स्थाणोर्व्वः पातु मूर्ड्ा सर इव सततव्यामगंगाम्बुलाल- स्फूर्ज्जद्ोगीन्द्रपं कश्वथविकट जटाजूटकडारहारी। मन्दं यच स्फुरन्स्यो धवलनराशरोवारिजन्मान्तराल- स्पष्टः प्रोद्यन्मृणालांकुरनिकर इवाभान्ति मौलीन्दुभास:।। 5. नेचक्रोडप्रसक्तोज्वलदहनशिखापि।गभासां जटानां 3 भारं संयम्य कृत्वा समममृतकरोद्धासि मौलीन्दुबिम्बं। हस्ताम्यामूर्ध मुद्यद्विशशिखिवदनत्रन्थिमातत्य नागं स्थाणु: प्रारब्धनृत्तो जगदवतु लयोत्कम्पिपादंगुलीकः।। 6. चूडाचारुमणीन्दुमण्डितभुवः सद्भोगिनामाश्रयः पक्षच्छेदमयार्त्तिसंकटवतां रक्षाक्षा मो भूभृतां। 4 दूराभ्यागतवाहिनीपरिकरो रत्नप्रकारोज्वलः श्रीमानित्थमुदारसागरसमो मौर्यान्वयो दृम्यते।। 7. दिङ्गागा इव जात्यसंभृतमुद्दो दानोज्वलैराननै- व्विस्त्रम्भेण रमन्त्यभीतमनसा मानोद्ुरास्स्व्वतः । सद्ूंशत्ववशप्रसिद्धयशसो यस्मिन्प्रसिद्धा गुणै: श्लाध्या भद्रतया च सत्वबहुलापक्षस्ससं भूभृतः। 5

8. इत्थं भवत्सु भूपेषु भुजन्त्सु सकलां महीं। धवलात्मा नृपस्तच यशसा धवलोभवत्। 9. कायादिप्रकटार्ज्जितैरहरह स्वैरेव दोषैः सदा निर्व्वस्त्रा सततक्षुध प्रतिदिनं स्पष्टीभवय्यातनाः। राच्ीसंचरणा भृशं परगृहेष्वित्थं विजित्यारयोः येनाद्यापि नरेन्द्रतांt सुविपदो नीताः पिशाचा इव॥ 6

Verse 3. a फणामणि. Kielhorn फणामणी, corrected into फणामणि.B छरिता- स्सधूम. K. छुरिभस्मधूम. Verse 4. a Read, with K., मूर्द्धा. B विकट. K. विकटा corrected to विकट. The distinction between ट and टा is very clearly seen in the four syllables जटाजूट here. y जन्मान्तराल. K. जन्मान्तराले. Verse 5. a उज्वल is throughout so written .- पिंगभासा K (प्रिय) भासां .- y Read with K., हस्ताभ्यामूर्धमु°. Verse 7. B मनसा. K. मनसो. 8 Bead, with K., पक्षैस्सम. Verse 9 a. Visarga is wanted after TETE. K. reads it, but says it is very indistinct. My rub- bing, which does not show it, may be defective. Bat compare two other cases of an omitted visarga in the next line. B Bead निव्वस्त्राः सततकुष: K corrects.

Digitized by Google .

AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 49

10. कोपाळूनमहेभकुम्भविगलन्मुक्ताफलालंकृत- स्फीतात्रसुतिमण्डिता अपि मुहुर्येनोर्ज्जितेन स्वयं। उन्नालीरिव पंकजैःपुनरपि च्छिन्नैः शिरोभिर्व्विषां विक्रान्तेन विभूषिता रणभुवः त्यक्त्ता नरैः कातरैः॥ tLine 7 ends. 11. इत्थं तस्य चिरन्तनो द्विजवरस्सन्नप्युपा।त्तायुध- प्रीतिप्रेतनरेन्द्रसत्कृतिमुदः पात्रं प्रसिद्धो गुणैः । यस्याद्यापि रणांगणे विलसितं संसूचयन्ति द्विष- त्सुष्यच्छोणितमर्म्मरा रणभुवः प्रेतपृयाः प्रायशः॥ 12. शब्दस्या्त्थ इव प्रपादनपटोम्मागर्गस्त्रयीसंजितो धर्म्मस्सेव विश्रुद्धभाक्सरलो न्यायस्य मूलं सतः। प्रामाण्य+ प्रगत ----- यस्साध्यस्य संसिद्धये 8 तस्य [rभूदभिसं]गतःपृयसखः श्रीसंकुकाख्यो नृपः।। 13. देगिणी नाम तस्यासीद्धर्म्मपत्नी द्विजोद्वा। तस्यां तस्याभवद्दीर: सूनुः कृतगुणादरः॥ 14. यशस्वी रूपवां दाता श्रीमां शिवगणो नृपः । शिवस्य नूनं स गणो येन तङ्रक्तां गतः।। 9 ज्वालादग्धक वन्धकण्ठकुहरप्रोन्मुक्त्तनादोल्बणे।

प्रीतप्रेतजने रणे रतधियायेनासकृच्चेष्टितं ।। 16. ज्ञात्वा जन्म जरावियोगमरणक्केशैरशेषैश्चिचितं स्वार्त्थस्याप्पयमेव योग उचितो लोके प्रसिद्धः सतां। तेनेद परमेश्वरस्य भवनं धम्मात्मना कारितं 10

यं दृष्टैव समस्तलोकवपुषां नष्टं कले: कल्मषं ।। निर्व्वस्त्ा:, and reads सततक्षुधि ("thef very indistinct.")-Read स्पष्टीभवद्या- तना: K. स्पष्टिभवय्यातना: corrected into स्पष्टीभवद्यातनां :. y Read with K. विजित्यारयो. 8 नरेन्द्रतां. K. (विकीर्ण)तां. Compare my translation. Verse 10. y Bead उन्नालैरिव which is K.'s reading of the stone .- Correct, with K., द्विषां 8 भुवः त्यक्ता sic. Verse 11. a K. द्विजवरस्स (न्वीर्य्यव) न्तायुध. B मुदः पातरं. The stone is injured here. 8 प्रिय is throughout the inscription written पृय. Verse 12. a K. प्रहादन. B Read धर्मस्येन K. धम्मस्सेव्य. 8 K. तसय [[भूदभिसयं]तः Verse 13. a K. द्रगिणी 'Anusvara or uncertain.' B K. [सूनुः] कृतगुणा [करः]. Verse 14. y K. सगणो. Verse 15. y Read नाराच. K. नारा(जैर्म्म)थित .- K. रक्तासवं 8 K. प्रीतपेतजनो-R. येनासकृर्च्चब्बतः Verse 16. a K. उचित: cor- rected into उचितो. The correct form is quite distinct, तो being written as in Jain MSS. [ता, except that two wedges take the place of the two lines. y K. corrects यं into यद्. Compare my translation.

Digitized by Google

50 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH.

17. पृष्पाशोकसमीरणेन सुरभावुत्फल्लचूतांकुरे काले मत्तविलोलषद्गदकुले व्यारुद्दिडण्डले। जातेपाङ्गनिरीक्षणैककथके नारीजनस्य स्मरे कप्ं सिद्धवनं भवस्य सुधिया तेनेह कण्वाश्रमे।। +Line 11 ends. 18. कालेन्दोलाकुलानां तनुवलनभरात्प्रस्फुटत्कंचुकानां कान्तानां दृशयमाने कुचकलशतटीभाजिसंभोगचिन्हे। यस्मिन्प्रेयोभिमुख्यस्थितिझटितिन मच्छस्मिंतार्द्धेक्षणानां भूभंगैरेव रम्यो हृदयविनिहितस्सूच्यते प्रेमबन्धः ॥ 12 19. म+ त्तद्विरेफझङ्कारसहकारविराजिताः । संवीक्ष्य ककुभी याष्पं मुंचन्ति पथिकांगना: ॥ 20. धूपादिगन्धदीपार्त्थ खण्डस्फुटितहेतुना। मामौदत्ती क्षया नीमिः सव्वा ट्वोंचोगिपद्रकौ । 21. पालयन्तु नृपा: सर्व्वे येषां भूमिरियं भवे। एवं कृते ते धर्ष्मार्य नूनं यान्ति 1शिवालयं।। 13 22. संसारसागर घोरं अनेन धम्मसेतुना। तारयिष्यत्यसौ नूनं जन्यौ चात्मानमेव च ।। 23. यावत्ससागरां पृथ्वीं सनगां च सकाननां। यावदिन्वुस्तपे भानुस्तावत्कीर्ततिर्मर्भविष्यति ।। 24. संवत्सरशतैर्यातैः सपंचनवत्यर्ग्गलैः । 14 सप्तभिर्म्मालवेशानां मन्दिरं घूर्ज्जे:+ कृतं । 25. अलुब्धः पृयवादी च शिवभक्तिरतः सदा। कारापकोशब्दगण: धार्म्मिक: शंसितव्रतः। 26. दक्ष: प्राज्ञो विनीतात्मा गुरुभक्तः पृयंवदः । तृप्तो ------ कश्चास्मि कायस्थो गोमि कांगजः।। 27. उत्कण्ण शिवनागेन द्वारशिवस्य सूनुना। सूनुना भहसुरभेदेवटेन +श्रुतोज्वलाः।। 15 28. शोका अमी कृता तया मौलिचन्द्रसुधाजुषः। कृष्णसुतो गुणाढयश्च सूत्रधारोत्र णण्णकः ॥। Verse 17. B K. काल्ये .- K. कुलैर्व्यारुद्द°. Verse 18. a K. काल्येन्दो .- K. दृश्यमानैः (कुचकलशभुर्जा) भोजिसंभोगचिन्नेः y K. यस्मि (न्प्रिया) भिमुख्य. 8 K. रम्यैर्हदय. Verse 19. a K,° झडूारि the "f being very faintly visiblo." B Read बाष्पं. Verse 20 B Read perhaps ग्रामौ दत्ताक्षया नीवि :. K, क्षयो नीमि evidently stands for अक्षयनीवि :. Verse 21. a Read, with K. भवेत्. Verso 23. y Bead तपेद्दानु :. Verse 24 a K. "the expression sa-argala for adhika I havo not met with anywhere else." Sapanchanavatyargalaih is perhaps better explained as a bahuvrihi compound, the first member of which is Sapanch- anavati "90 plus 5, and the second, argala, in the sense of " furthest limit." Verse 25. y K. कारापको शब्दगुण: 8 Verse 26. a K. शूरभक्त :- B Read with K. भट्टसुरभेईवटेन. Verse 28. a Read भन््या. K. कृ[ता] भन्तया.

Google

AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 51

29. एतत्कण्वाश्रमं ज्ञात्वा सर्व्वपापहरं शुभं। कृतं हि मन्दिरं शम्भो: धर्म्मकीरतिविवर्दधनं॥ 30. यतिहीनं अर्थशब्दहीनं मात्राहीनं तु यड्वे। तत्सव्वे साधुचि।त्तेन मर्षणीय बुधैस्सदा।। +Line 16 ends

TRANSLATION.

Om! Adoration to Śiva! Om !

1. Adoration to Sambhu through Whom it is that we are able to cross life's whole sea, Whose is the Hand let down to us that are all fallen in the Pit of Darkness.1 2. May Śambhu's matted locks protect you-locks that delight by conditions (moods) wide apart : for here they are bright as the White Land with the countless rays of the moon falling upon them, there dark with the heavy folds of the Monarch of Serpents that lie ever upon them : here hot with the flashes of his eye, there cold indeed with the plashing waters of the Daughter of Jahnu.9 3. May Sambhu's matted locks protect you-locks whose orna- ments are ever intermingling : for over all of them there lie the quiver- ing rays of the moon that are blended with the lustre of the jewel in the Great Serpent's hood : and in some places they are streaked with the smoke-encircled tawny tongues of flame from the fire of his eye, in others dashed with the pearly drops of spray thrown up by the River of the Gods.

Verse 29 a. He first wrote यतिहीनमर्थ .- Bead with K. भवेत्. 1 अभिसंपात is given by Bohtlingk (Smaller Dictionary) as a word for which no reference was available. हस्तालम्ब is the same as हस्तावलम्ब a word which B R explain as meaning " that which the hands lay hold of." I have suggested another way of taking the word. Compare the verse which B R refer to :-

दुर्ग: संसारमार्गो मरणमनियतं व्याधयो दुर्निवार्या दुष्पापा कर्मभूमिन खलु निपततामस्ति हस्तावलम्बः । इत्येवं संप्रधार्य प्रतिदिवसमहो मानसे शुद्धबुद्धया धर्मे चिन्त विधेयं नियतमतिगुणं वाञ्छता सिद्धिसौख्यम् ।। Śiva wears the Moon as his crest jewel, and the serpent Sesha coils its folds over his head, through his matted locks the Ganges finds a path as it descends from heaven to become an earthly stream. 8

Digitized by Google

52 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH.

4. May Sthanu's Head protect you. It is a lake whose lotus charms the eye.3 That lotus is the great braid of hair: and the mud to which it clings loosely is the great serpent that ever lazily swims on the water of the heavenly Ganges. It is a lake where the moon's rays quietly shining, appear like many lotus stalks seen between the white skulls that are its lotus-flowers. 5. Lo He begins to dance and his toes keep measure with the beat : he has bound together the weight of those locks that are reddened with the tongues of flame from the flashing fire that has its home in his deep-sunk eye: he has put straight the moon's orb that is bright with its nectar-like rays : and with his two hands he has pulled tight the serpent from whose knotted face the fire of the poison is up- springing. May this Sthanu protect the world. 6. The Maurya line is seen to be like the deep (noble) sea: it illuminates the world with the moon of its crest-jewel (the moon as its crest-jewel) is the refuge of great princes (great serpents) : it is able to protect kings (mountains) that are in pain and trouble through fear of the destruction of their forces (wings) : to it come armies (rivers) from far and wide: it is bright with all manner of precious possessions (jewels): and in it fortune dwells. 7. The kings of that line-like World Elephants-greatly glad- dening good men with the light of their faces bright with gifts (the juice that exudes from the temples of elephants)-exalted in their pride, roam at large over the earth confidently and undaunted of heart: praised too for their friendliness (bhadra, a kind of elephant) and - - ? they are glorious for their race, more glorious for their virtues. 8. Such were these kings and they reigned over the whole earth. And among them there arose king Dhavala, himself, by reason of his fame, as resplendent (dhavala = white) as his name. 9. Through their own faults heaped up in the sight of all men from day to day by sins of thought, word, and deed, this king's enemies were by him at once conquered and made kings (wandering beggars) like evil spirits naked and ever hungry, with new terrors appearing each day, they wander by night from door to door of the stranger. 10. Not once or twice did he the mighty and valorous one by his own right hand adorn over again the fields of fight-deserted of timid 3 Literally "like a lake charming by means of the lotus," &c. It is no easy matter to render this style into English in a way that shall not be absolutely unreadable.

Digitized by Google

AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 53

men with the severed heads of his enemies for lotuses torn from their stalks, though these fields were already adorned with the pearls that had fallen from the elephant temples he had cloven asunder in his wrath, and garnished with broad streams of blood. 11-12. Now a king Śri Sankuka by name had long been this man's intimate and dear friend. Though a brahmin this Saukuka bore arms and took such joy in them that he was a very vessel of ac- ceptable offerings to the King of the Dead. He was famed for his virtues. Even now the spirit-haunted fields of fight, full of the mur- mur of the rivers of the blood of his foes slowly drying up speak of his pastime in the courts of war. To Dhavala Sankuka was what the meaning is to the significant word, what the Path of the so-called Triad (the three Vedas) is to the Law. He was pure at heart and a very Root of Good Conduct - -? 13. He had a lawful wife, by name Denginî, of the people of the twice-born. She bore to him a son-a hero, who paid due respect to merit. 14. King Sivagana, glorious, handsome, liberal and fortunate. Surely he was once (in a previous birth) that gana (host) of Siva since he became now his devotee. 15. Not once or twice did he wrestle, pleased at heart in the field of war, the field made frightful by the noise that issued from the open ends of the throats of the headless corpses that were their own funeral pyre, on which they burnt with the flame lit by the flashes of fire that rose from their arrows as it was cloven by the sword stroke-the field where the spirits of the dead saw with pleasure the blood vomited by the fowls of the air as they rose in terror from the faces gashed by the arrows that still adhered to them.+ 16. But the good know assuredly that life is full of all manner of troubles-old age, bereavement, and death-and that ' one thing only is needful' here : therefore did this man cause to be built this .temple of the Most High God, to but look on Whom is for all people to wash from their bodies the stain of Time. 17. When asoka-trees in flower perfumed the air, when the mango was in blossom, and East, West, North, and South were beset with swarms of drunken and staggering bees, when Love spoke only of the

• The birds were wounded or frightened : and the spirits of the air get blood to drink without having to go further.

Digitized by Google

54 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH.

coquettish glances of women folk, here in the hermitage of Kanva this man piously built a fair House for Siva. 18. At the time when women, brought face to face with their lovers, with a laugh bend low and balf close their eyes, as they think of all they show on breasts laid bare by the motion of the swing, and speak the love they feel only by their knotted brows. 19. And when those whose lords are absent, let fall a tear as they mark how all round them the place is adorned with mango-trees on which the drunken bees are humming. 20. For incense, perfumes or light, and for repairs, two villages Sarvatka and Chaoni, have been assigned in perpetuity. 21. Let all kings whose this land may be maintain this gift : if they do so for righteousness sake assuredly they will come to Siva's, heavenly home. 22. This is a Bridge of Righteousness over which assuredly such an one may transport himself and his parents° across life's awful sea. 23. His fame shall endure as long as the earth with her seas, hills, and groves, as long as the sun and moon shall burn.

Śiva was built. 24. When 795 years of the kings of Malava had gone this temple of

25. The architect was Asabdagana (?)-a man free from avarice, kindly spoken, and always a true worshipper of Siva. 26. The writer here is Gomika's son Raupuka, a man clever, wise, modest of heart, devoted to his guru, kind spoken. 27-8. Śivanâga, Dvârasiva's son engraved this : Devata, Bhatțasura- bhi's son composed with faithful heart these verses that are bright as the scriptures, and full of the nectar distilled from the moon on His crest. And the virtuous Nannaka, Krishna's son, was the Sutradhara here. 29. Forasmuch as the hermitage of Kanva is blessed and able to take away all sin: therefore in it has been built this temple of Sambhu, whereby that one's merit and fame shall increase. 30. Whatever mistakes there may be in the joinings or words or mâtras these I pray the learned of all time kindly to forgive.

B R give this as a meaning of y for which no reference was available.

Google