Page images
PDF
EPUB

between them. They lived when Nanda was reigning in India.

(2) Kátyáyana has written a commentary, called “Vártika”, on Pánini's grammar. It shows that meanings and use of certain words, etc., had undergone a change from Pánini's time to that of Kátyayana.

(3) The words Sanskrita and Prákrita have not been used by Pánini in the sense of the languages. This shows that Prákrita had not been formed at the time. Later on, as the language developed in the usual course into what we call Prákrita, the older language of Pánini's time, a complete record of which we possess in his exhaustive grammar, was given the name Sanskrita (properly arranged) as opposed to the natural or popular Prákrita.

(4) None of the numerous names of Sákya-muni has been mentioned by Pánini. This is what was expected.

Buddha must have lived several centuries after Pánini, for in his time we find Prákrita was the language of the people.

(5) The words Upanishat, Aranyaka and Bráhmaņa do not occur in his grammar as meaning the compilations bearing those names, showing that these pieces of Vedic literature were not in his time separated from the Vedas they belonged to, and compiled in the form in which we have them.

(6) Names of all the principal personages of the great war (Mahábhárata) have been mentioned in the grammar. The word Mahábhárata in the sense of the book also occurs.

(7) The words Vasudevak and Arjunak are mentioned in the sense of followers and believers of Vásudeva and Arjuna. A recent discovery of a Sanskrita inscription on a well at Ghusundi shows that there was a regular Sankarṣaṇa Vásudeva cult.

Of these No. 1 can be easily set aside, as in consideration

of No. 2, Págini could not be a contemporary of Kátyáyana.

The reference to Rājā Nanda need not be taken seriously, as all old things of any importance are taken as having happened in his time, in the same way as later things are ascribed to Rājā Bhoja and more recent ones to Emperor Akbar. The use of the word "Yavanāni" as a writing, which is sometimes quoted to show that Páņini lived after the arrival of the Greeks in India, is mentioned by Kátyáyana, and not by Tánini.

The conclusion, therefore, is that Panini lived before Buddha and after the Mahábhárata was written; that sufficient time must have elapsed between him and Buddha to allow of the change of the popular language from the Sanskrita to Prákrita, and of such a mass of Vedic literature having been compiled; and that an equally long period must be allowed between him and the great war, as Krishna and Arjuna were in his time regarded as superhuman beings.

The date of the death of Buddha has been fixed nearabout 480 B. C. Let us see if an approximate date could be assigned to the great war. "Rájatarangiņi", the History of Káshmir, says that Raja Gonarda of Káshmír was a contemporay of Yudhisthira and lived in 653rd year of Kaliyuga era. This assigns about 2450 B. C., to Yudhishthira. Vishnu Purána, however, says that 1200 years of Kaliyuga had passed when Parikshita, the grandson of Arjuna, was king. This puts him. in 1900 B. C. Bhagwata Purána says, 1510 years elapsed between the birth of Parikshita and the accession of the Emperor Nanda. As this king reigned 100 years before Chandra Gupta, the date of Parikshita, according to this Purana also, comes to about 1900 B. C.

The date mentioned in the Mahábhárata for the death of Bhishma, viz., the full-moon day of Mágha and the winter solstice, also fixes upon a certain period. Being full-moon day of Mágha, the moon that day was in the asterism Maghá and, consequently, the sun somewhere between the middle points of Dhaneshtá and Shatbhiká. The winter solstice in this position of the sun could have taken place from 14th to 23rd century B. C. The date 1900 B. C. given in the Puránas is not, therefore, very far from correct, and could be accepted.

We can, therefore, safely conclude that Pánini lived sometime in the 12th century B. C. He cannot anyhow be put after the 10th century B. C.

III-Records of writing in India before

Panini's time.

We shall now see if we can find any reference which may show the existence of writing in India before Pánini's time. The difficulty lies in the fact that besides the Vedas and the ancient literature connected with them, and the Epics, the Rámáyana and the Mahábhárata, there are no books which can show a definite claim as being older than Páņini, and we have almost to confine ourselves to these.

The Mahábhárata in the beginning (1) contains the story of how, on Brahmá's suggestion, the sage Dwaipayana Vyása, the author of the great Epic, invoked Ganesha for writing to dictation his book which he had conceived in his mind. Ganesha, on being asked, agreed to be the writer, provided his pen did not rest after he had once started. On this Vyása imposed the condition that he should not write anything without understanding its meaning. This having been agreed to, Ganesha engaged himself in writing, and Vyása when he wanted time, introduced stanzas with abstruse meaning. This shows the existence of writing at the time the introductory portion of the. Epic contaning the story was written; but as this was evidently long after Vyása composed the poem and possibly after Pánini's time, it is no proof of existence of writing before the grammarian.

It is possible this story of the Mahábhárata having been written by Ganesha was an old one, although inserted in the poem much later; but unless it is shown otherwise, that writing did exist near about the time the Epic was written, no credence can be given to it.

The Rámáyana contains a more definite record to show the existence of writing at the time that Epic was composed. Hanumána, the Vánara friend of Ráma, who was sent to search out Sítá, Ráma's wife, finding her in Rávana's garden, introduced himself to her saying that he was a Vánara and messenger from

(1) Mahabharata Adiparva, Anukramanikadhyaya, St. 17, et, seq.

Ráma and asked her to see the ring on which "the name of Ráma was engraved". (1) It is impossible to say what mode of writing was in vogue in those ancient days when Rámáyana was composed, but the passage leaves no doubt as to the existence of writing at the time..

As to the age of the Rámáyana there is a difference of opinion. Indians take the Rámáyana as older than the Mahábharata while the European scholars place its date after the latter. Taking into consideration the facts that the whole narrative of the Rámáyana, with the names of its characters, is recounted in Mahábhárata, which also mentions the name of the book; that the name of none of the heroes of the Great War occurs as such in the Rámáyana; and that the part of the country under the Aryan influence, as found from the Rámáyana was much less than that dealt with in the Mahábhárata, it appears probable that the Indian view is correct. Be it as it may, no doubt has been raised as to the priority of the Rámáyana to Pánini's grammar. It is also evident from the fact that there are many constructions in the Rámáyana which are not in accordance with the rules of Pánini, showing that those constructions had become obsolete by the time Pánini wrote, and this means a fairly long interval. The word "Lakshmana" Ráma's brother, has also been given in Pánini's "Unádi Sūtras".

We can also infer the existence of writing prior to Pánini's time from the mention of the names of several grammarians who preceded him. These are Apiśáli, Kágyapa, Gárgya, Gálawa, Chákravarmana, Bháradwaja, Sákatáyana, Sákalya, Senaka, Sphotayana and Puskarasádis. The idea of grammar, and particularly Sanskrita grammar which deals so much with the changes and coalescence of sounds, cannot be conceived without these sounds having been well differentiated and analysed beforehand; in other words, it presupposes the existence of an alphabet. Now, if we consider the manner in which writing has been developed as discussed in the next chapter, the alphabet follows the introduction of writing, and does not precede it. The existence of

(1) Valmikiya Ramayana, Sundarkanda-36.2.

so many grammarians before Pánini, therefore, shows conclusively that phonetic writing was introduced in India long before his time. As a matter of fact, one of the 18 alphabets mentioned in the Jaina Sutra, named "Samaváyanga Sutra" (B. C. 300) and "Pannávaná Sutra " is Pushkarasári or Pukharsádiya, named evidently after the Pushkarasádi grammarians of Pánini.

The Atharva Veda carries the Indian writing still earlier, when we find in it the words Likhit (लिखित्) Likhát (लिखात्) and likhitam (fefta) (1). Besides in giving the period of a Kalpa as 432 million years, it " says hundred, ayuta (ten thousand) two, three and four together make the time". (2) This evidently indicates putting down or writing of the figures and when such enormous figures were being written and dealt with, we cannot but conclude that other writing was also in vogue.

व्

The composition of the mystic syllable Om indicates a still greater antiquity for the writing in India. Yáska, the author of Nirukta, calls it a three-lettered word, composed of, and उ nd म् (a, u and m), which have latterly been taken to mean Vishnu, Siva and Brahma, respectively. The derivation as given by Yáska cannot be doubted; not so with the meaning of the last two letters as Siva and Prabmá appear as members of the triad long after the sacred syllable came into use. The probability appears to be that is a transformation of a (v), and the three letters, I and stood for the three most ancient gods of the Aryans,Aryaman, Varuna and Mitra. These gods are found mentioned amongst almost all the branches of the Aryans and were worshipped before their separation. In the Rigveda, although they have been praised as being among the mightiest of the gods, their functions have been mixed up, showing that by the time the hymns of the Rig Veda were composed, they were already very old. They are generally spoken of together, as very mighty gods "over whom neither at home nor yet abroad on path ways

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »