Mahaabhashyakaara Patanjali knew the work of Bhaasa Mahakavi – The Vasavadatta

[Veeranarayana Pandurangi]

To all,

It is of some great historical value that I find Mahaabhashyakaara Patanjali quoting the work of Bhaasa Mahakavi “Vasavadatta” in his commentary – The Mahabhasya. The reference to this great work of Bhaasa, who was anterior to Kalidasa, is found under the comment by Patanjali on Paniniya sootra “adhikrutya krute granthe” [4/3/87]. While throwing light on the Katyayana Vararuchi’s vartika on the this sootra, Patanjali says that the word used in the sootra “Granthe” refers to book if it is an aakhyaayika meaning story of a person and the affix is elided and gives two examples - 1. Vasavadattaa and 2. Sumanottaraa.

My interest in this finding of Mahaabhashya with particular reference to the work of Bhaasa viz.,Vasavadattaa that is quoted by name is of high historical value. Two points to ponder here:-

A] Mahaabhashyakaara Patanjali is posterior to Bhaasa as it is clear from the reference he makes to latter’s work.

B] Bhaasa Mahakavi and Mahaabhashyakaara Patanjali must have belonged to the same region. This is purely my conjecture as works of both these luminaries in their own respective filed of “Dramatturgy” and “Grammar” were found in the state of Kerala. I have heard from Bannanje that the copy of manuscript of Mahaabhashya was first found in Kerala and no copy of it was found elsewhere in rest of India.

Secondly, as student of Sanskrit I was told by my college lecturer many years ago that Bhaasa’s 13 plays were found lying in the one of the palaces in Kerala intact and it was discovered by the great scholar Shriyut T Ganapathi Shastri of Kerala state in the year 1913. As many of you may know that till these 13 plays of Bhaasa were discovered, he was known to the scholarly world through scanty references by other doctors of Sanskrit poetics here and there. Bhaasa was almost forgotten and he would have been permanently removed from the literary firmament had it not been for the labours of the scholar of the repute of Shriyut T Ganapathi Shastri.

I tend to draw a conjecture from this narrative that both works were found in Kerala and now where else and that Mahaabhashyakaara Patanjali makes a reference to Bhaasa’s work by name – the one which is world famous among Sanskrit plays, THE VASAVADATTA – THAT THESE TWO EMINENT LUMINIARIES MUST HAVE BELONGED TO KERALA AND NOT TO ANY OTHER PROVINCE IN REST OF INDIA.  

This is a food for thought for Sanskrit historians. While reading an English book on Paninian work I came across this finding which is of high historical value. I welcome if you anyone of can throw further light on this.

Thanks and regards / B Raghavendra   

--

Veeranarayana N.K. Pandurangi
Head, Dept of Darshanas,
Yoganandacharya Bhavan,
Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Samskrita University, Madau, post Bhankrota, Jaipur, 302026.

अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।

ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।

तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[narayanan er]

Respected scholars,
References of books certainly show the posteriority of the referring authors. But at the same time it may not be right to imagine that referring authors and the referred authors were belonged to some particular region of the subcontinent.The statement:  "the copy of manuscript of Mahaabhashya was first found in Kerala and no copy of it was found elsewhere in rest of India." only shows that there had a tradition of Kerala in preserving manuscripts in whichever scripts of the contemporary practice. It is not clear that when the copy of manuscript of Mahaabhashya was first found in Kerala. During the 11th Century A. D. Kerala had a rich tradition of learning Sanskrit Grammar at four locations called: Kumpala, Chovvannoor, Etakkalattoor and Uppala. Bhasa's works were also preserved by the Travancore Royal Family, where Raja Ravi Varma and Svaati Tirunaal etc. were born and flourished, may simply be due to their excessive intimacy towards arts and dramaturgy. Telugu, Grantha and Malayalam scripts were popular in Kerala while manuscripting contents on the palm leaves with the iron sticks.

But locating manuscripts is a different issue. Gangesopadhyaya of Mithila may not be a Keralite whereas his Nyaya works were popular throughout the belt of southern peninsula in Telugu script; but located at far south of Kerala. What does it mean? It shows the unity of Indian Shastra Tradition, and that unity is beyond boundaries.

Bhashyakaara can refer from Bhasa's work on two aspects:

1. He might have watched and listened to the drama, or
2. He might have had a manuscript in a popular or some regional script. ( I don't have much of an idea about the status of scripts during or beyond the 2nd Century B. C.)

I would like to know that who is the author of Sumanottaraa?

These are my humble thoughts and assumptions. I am sorry if I went wrong.

Narayanan

---

From: Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 19 November, 2010 1:54:31 PM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Mahaabhashyakaara Patanjali knew the work of Bhaasa Mahakavi – The Vasavadatta

--

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

This is thought provoking without doubt, but has to be weighed against various odd and favours. Let all of us give a thought to it. Best DB --- On Fri, 19/11/10, Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Rajkumari Trikha]

Respected scholars,

As far as I know, the reference to Vasavadatta by Patanjali, ( along with Sumanottara and bhaimarathi) ( refererd to, in the posting of Shri Veernarayana Pandurangiji ) is for Subandhu"s Vasavadatta, and nor for Bhasa's Svapnavasavadattam.

With due regards,

Rajkumari Trikha    

2010/11/19 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

[Bhagwan Singh]

Thank you a lot for this information. I never thought that Bhassa may ante-date patanjali. BS

--- On Fri, 19/11/10, Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com> Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Mahaabhashyakaara Patanjali knew the work of Bhaasa Mahakavi – The Vasavadatta To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

--

[navaratna rajaramnavaratna]

 

   I believe there is indirect evidence that Bhasa was not aware of Patanjali's grammar since he violates Paninian rules (of Patanjali). It could also mean that Patanjali had not yet assumed the authority that he came to hold later.

 

N.S. Rajaram

2010/11/19 Bhagwan Singh <bhagw...@yahoo.co.in>

[Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma]

अभिवाद्य,

>he violates Paninian rules (of Patanjali).

In the above context (violation of rules)
I would like to draw the attention of the scholars to an
important work of Sri Melpattur Bhatta Shreepada(Bhattatiripad)
of Kerala titled "अपाणिनीयप्रद्योत:" (or is it प्रक्रियासर्वस्वं ?, kindly correct me.)
Either of these texts(or both?) provides authentic usages which are
non-Panini. In other words, there seems to be no such error of violating
Paninian rules.
In the works of Sri Madhvacharya there are many usages which appear to be
"aPanini".(especially in Mahabharatatatparyanirnayam.Refer to Sri Bannanje's notes.)
Besides, there are "Chaandasa" usages which are Veda-specific.

धन्योस्मि।

2010/11/19 navaratna rajaramnavaratna <rajaramn...@gmail.com>

--
Aangirasa/Dr.S.Ramakrishna Sharma. M.A.,Ph.D.(Eng.Lit.),Ph.D.(Sanskrit.).

[S. Kalyanaraman]

http://www.archive.org/details/apaniniyapramany014531mbp

Melpputtur Narayana Bhattatiri or Narayana Bhattapaada, Apaanineeya praamenya saadhanam, 1968, SVUO Journal, Vol. VIII, Texts and Studies, No. 2 

Narayana Bhattatiri flourished between 1560 and 1666 CE.

This was described under the title Parapakshakhandanam in Desc. Catalogue of Skt. MSS. in Curator's Office Library, Trivandrum, 1939, No. 475.

Also linked at: https://sites.google.com/site/bharatasahitya/panini?pli=1

k

2010/11/20 Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma <d.ramak...@gmail.com>

[Arun]

My father late Sri Chandrashekhar Upadhyay while translating Dramas of
Bhasa was also intrigued by this-these are published by Nag
Publishers, Delhi-7. This information is a great work. Reason is that
there are several times of mahabhashya and of Kalidasa. Firstly-
Kalidasa. There were 3 famous persons by name Kalidasa and one had
title of Kalidasa. Rajashekhara in Kavya Mimansa has written about 3
Kalidasas and M. Srinivasacharya in his 'History of sanskrit
literature' (MLBD) has discussed it. Dramatist Kalidasa was in time of
Agnimitra (1156 BC-Puranic chronology) as indicated by him in his
drama-Malavikagnimitram at end (in Bharata-vakya). Poet Kalidasa was
in court of Paramara king Vikramaditya (82 BC-19 AD) who had started
Vikrama-samvat in 57 BC. He wrote a book Jyotirvidabharana in VS 24
(33 BC) starting in Madhava month and completing in Karttika. He
indicated that he had written Raghuvamsha and Kumara-sambhavam before
that. Probably Meghaduta was written after that. Meghaduta has an
important astronomical reference that rains were starting in month of
Ashadha in Ramagiri ( south west Orissa which was a penal colony
called Dandakaranya). Now it starts in Jyestha month which indicates
its time in 1st century BC. There is of course a finer point. Months
started from bright half at start of kali in 3102 BC-Vikramadidtya
started with dark half as seasons had shifted back by 1 and half
months in 3000 years. If month start is assumed as per previous norm,
it would indicate time in Agnimitra period. If we take Vikrama samvat
rule which had just started, then Meghaduta was in Vikrama period by
poet Kalidasa. Third Kalidasa was in time of a Bhoja king of Malava
who was contemporary of Mohammad as per Bhavishya-purana. He was a
tantrika and ashu-kavi. He was contemporary of Jaina muni Manatunga
also (author of Bhaktamara-stotra). Gupta king Samudragupta (320-261
BC) in his Krishna-Charita has indicated Harishena as Raghukara (story
of Raghu-basis of later epic Raghuvamsha. Harishena was given name
Kalidasa. Samudragupta too has indicated that Patanjali was author of
Charaka-samhita, Yoga-sutra and mahabhashya. Just after that Bhasa has
been described as author of 20 dramas. Long extract of Krishna-charita
are in 7th appendix of 'sanskrit vyakarana ka Itihasa' by Yudhishthira
Mimansaka.
Patanjali was of course one whom Vijnanabhikshu in his commentary on
yoga-sutras has indicated as author of Mahabhashya, Charaka-samhita
and yoga-sutras also. Parts 2, 3 of Charaka-samhita are indeed
explanations of many topics of Yoga-sutras. However, his mahabhashya
was lost and re-written at least 2 or probably 3 times. Rajatarangini
has indicated that it was revived by a Gonanda king of kashmir
sometime in 1600 BC. Katha-sarit-sagara tells that Gaudapada was
disciple of Shukadeva and he learnt Mahabhashya from Patanjali as
Adishesha at Chdambaram. His disciple was Govinda-pada, Guru of Adi-
Shankara (509-477 BC) who had copied Mahabhashya before his sanyasa.
That has been called Aja-bhakshita bhashya as many leaves were missing
or torn like eaten by goat. So, he filled up blanks by his
innovations. Thus reference to Bhasa, Pushyamitra and attack of Hunas
on saket, their defeat by jatras (with matted hair, Jat?) etc have
come.
-Arun Kumar upadhyay, 09437034172

On Nov 19, 1:24 pm, Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veera...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> <http://sigads.rediff.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/www.rediffmail.co...>

[sadasivamurty rani]

Here I would like to add a few more observations. 1. Is it Bhasa's Vasavadatta referred to by Patanjali in his Mahabhayshya?    There nearly more than 15 Writings (in prose or poetry or drama form) either with the name or on the theme of Vasavadatta. Some of them were written either before or in the times of Ptanjali. Particlularly Svapna Vasavadatta of Bhasa and Vina Vasavadatta (which was ascribed to Sudraka) were of pre-Patanjali times. The names of both these plays bear an adjectival prefix i.e. "Svapna" and "Vina". So which "Vasavadatta" was in the mind of Patnajali was a question to be settled. 2. Kaiyata's words lead to a conception that Subandhu's Vasavadatta was the mentioned by Patanjali. The words of Kaiyata are like this: आख्यायिका वास्वदत्तिक: इति भाष्यम्। वासवदत्तिक इति वासवदत्तामधिकृत्य कृताख्यायिका वासवदत्ता। अधिकृत्य कृते ग्रन्थे इत्यर्थे वृद्धाच्छ:............इत्यादि। From these words some scholars affirmed that it was Subandhu's Vasavadatta that was referred to by Patanjali. But it may not be acceptable. The main reason is that Subandhu was a leter writer than Patanjali. In one of the introductory stanzas of Vasavadatta Subandhu says: सा रस्वत्ता विहता नवका विलसन्ति नो कङ्क:। सरसीव कीर्तिशेषं गतवति भुवि विक्रमादित्ये॥ From this shloka it can be concluded that Subandhu belongs to a time after that of the Epoch Maker King Vikramaditya of Ujjain (whom unfortunately the modern historians consider to be just a legendary king). According to our tradtion the date of  Vikram was placed in 56BC. Patanjali's date was still earlier and palced between 10th centure BC to 2nd Century BC by different Indian and western scholars. So it might not be the Vasvadatta of Subandhu in the thoughts of Patanjali. Moreover the VAsavadatta Akhyayika mentioned by Kaiatya may be different from that of Subandhu. This further suggests that the Vasavadatta mentieoned by Patanjali was a prose writing (Akhyayika) but not a drama. 3. A phrase from Kalidasa's Meghaduta उदयनकथाकोविदग्रामवृद्धाऩ् implies that the story of Udayana Vatsaraja and Vasavadatta was very popular in those times. So Many poets might be fond of writing thier kavyas about that popular pair and so they might have produced. Tapasa Vatsarajacarita, Unamatta Vatsaraja, Uadyanacharita etc. were all of this kind.   So further pursuits are ncessary to determine what is what. With warm regards, Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty --- On Sat, 20/11/10, navaratna rajaramnavaratna <rajaramn...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

20 11 10 The violation of Pāṇinian rules is not necessarily an evidence for date. Kālidāsa was posterior to Patañjali. But just note prabhraṃśayāṃ yo nahuṣhaṃ cakāra, vismāpayan vismitam ātmavṛttau, viśrāmaṃ labhatām and a lot more Best DB.

--- On Fri, 19/11/10, navaratna rajaramnavaratna <rajaramn...@gmail.com> wrote:

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhyah

Let there not be any confusion - VAsasvadattA of Subandhu and
SvapnavAsavadattam of BhAsa .

I do not know as to how one can make 'pUrvapadalopa' (satyA / bhAmA ) etc.

Under ' adhikrtya krte granthe' (PAn 4-3-87) Patanjali quotes one
VArtikam , i.e. lubAkhyAyikabhyo bahulam , and comments - adhikrtya
krte granthe ityatra AkhyAyikAbhyo bahulam kubvaktavyah - vAsavadattA
, sumanoharA .

Kaiyata says - tAdarthye caturthy , AkhyAyikAbhidhAnAya yah pratyayah
tasya bahulam lub bhavatItyarthah .

There is no 'vrddhAcchah' etc by Kaiyata .

Even SankarAcArya in second AdhyAya of SArIrakabhAsyam discusses the aspect of
names and history . It is difficult to decide the date with the data available .

In VAsavadatta , Subandhu refers to UdyotakAra who belonged to 600-700 AD .

Take some internal evidence --

1. gonardIyastvAha - is a usage wherein Patanjali offeres a synonym
unto himself - gAvah
nardanti atreti gonardah - a place in KAsmIr .

In Kerala there has been a severe problem of livestock and hence a
person from that
land only invented ' AmUl '(= non-breast milk) . So it cannot be Gonarda .

2. Patanjali belongs to AryAvarta -- prsodarAdIni yathopadistam (PAn 6-3-109) .
Migration of Aryas had been there and even today we address father by
the term 'Arya'.
Rather by all evidence Patanjali does not belong to Kerala .

3. If names of books mentioned have to be taken as authority to decide
the domicile of a person then what about other works mentioned by
Patanjali . Does this apply to PAnini etc also ?

4. VisrAmah is 'apAninIya' and CAndravyAkaranasAdhya . It is used
by BhavabhUti
(UttararAmacaritam) and KAlidAsa (SAkuntalam - 7) . There are other
usages also .

A PrAkrtasabda , i.e. IngAlam (angArah) - is used by SrIharsa
(Naisadham - 1 ) - vitenuringAlamivAyasah pare . The same is used by
AppayyadIksita in SiddhAntalesasamgraha .

5. With the same name there can be many books - Vivaranam in AdvaitavedAnta and
PUrvamImAmsA (BhAsyavivaranam ) . So which VAsavadattA ?

Such a discussion may not be very useful in any way .

dhanyo'smi

--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)

[Ashok Aklujkar]

I do not know if the original post on this matter expresses the hypothesis of Dr. Veeranarayana Pandurangi or B Raghavendra, whose name appears at the end.

Objective and internal as well as external (and therefore, strong) evidence exists to think of Pata;njali, the Mahaabhaa.sya author, as a native of Kashmir. Please see my three articles in _Linguistic Traditions of Kashmir_, published by D.K. Printworld, New Delhi. 

It has already been made clear by more than one correspondent on the issue that Pata;njali's example Vaasava-dattaa does not refer to any particular written composition, certainly not to Bhaasa's Svapna-vaasava-dattam or Subandhu's Vaasava-dattaa. 

To ascribe the Trivandrum plays to Bhaasa has become a tradition in modern scholarship. Yet it should be borne in mind that the internal evidence to ascribe the plays to Bhaasa exists only in the case of the Svapna-vaasava-dattam and Pratij;naa-yaugandharaaya.nam. Even in the case of these two plays, the evidence does not match exactly with what we find in the texts preserved in the mss. The texts in the mss could be ra:ngaav..rttis (stage versions), not the original scripts. Bhaasa entirely in his own words has probably not come down to us beyond the few verses that are quoted in some older anthologies. 

Just because the other eleven plays were found in one bundle (this information, too, needs to be checked for its accuracy and completeness; see below), along with the Svapna-vaasava-dattam and Pratij;naa-yaugandharaaya.nam, does not make them plays of the same person as the author of the Svapna-vaasava-dattam and Pratij;naa-yaugandharaaya.nam (who, as I indicate above, may remotely be Bhaasa). It is common to find works of several authors in one reasonably large manuscript. Also, several of those eleven plays have been found separately. (Prof. N.P. Unni's book gives the details). 

One manuscript of Pratimaa, if I recall correctly, even has a colophon that can possibly be taken as referring to the authorship of one Kaatyaayana (which we should not view as Bhaasa's gotra unless we come across another ancient source saying that Bhaasa's gotra indeed was Kaatyaayana).  

Most of the similarities seen in the thirteen plays can possibly be more straightforwardly (and hence more satisfactorily) explained as arising out of the fact that Kerala actors (particularly the Caakyaars) were using them as scripts for their performances. In fact, some Kerala scholars (Pisharoty?) took this position in T. Ganapati Sastri's own time. 

This is not to say that the texts could not be (reasonably) old or contain the essences of old plays. 

My main point is that we should not jump to conclusions without recognizing the uncertainties and complexities of evidence, without taking the evidence into account cumulatively, without maintaining a critical attitude toward the work of earlier scholars (however great and deserving of our gratitude they may be) and without reviewing at least some of the published scholarship. 

Has anyone on the list actually seen the manuscript bundle which T. Ganapati Sastri used? Have the manuscripts utilized by him for his editions of the individual Trivandrum plays been specifically identified? 

While Bhaasa continues to be studied and taught in India through secondary literature, it is a group in Germany that is trying to go back to the very foundation of that secondary literature. (No, they have not started this only because they got the money to do this sort of research. Money for humanities research is relatively scarce in the West, too. The more important and potentially helpful question is why someone in India did not think of the project after the work of Prof. Unni, if not after the work of Ganapati Sastri and C.R. Deodhar/Devadhar.). To get an idea of what the German project has achieved, please see (although not all sub-links seem to work at present): 

http://www.indologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/bhasa/publikations-listen/publ-bhasa-group.xhtml

http://www.indologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/bhasa/

http://www.india-karnataka.info/Bhāsa

ashok aklujkar

[Ashok Aklujkar]

B Raghavendra (or Veeranarayana Pandurangi?) wrote:

"I have heard from Bannanje that the copy of manuscript of Mahaabhashya was first found in Kerala and no copy of it was found elsewhere in rest of India. ... both works were found in Kerala and now where else and that Mahaabhashyakaara Patanjali ... Bhaasa... THESE TWO EMINENT LUMINIARIES MUST HAVE BELONGED TO KERALA AND NOT TO ANY OTHER PROVINCE IN REST OF INDIA."

An oversimplified version of Vaakyapadiiya 2.486 (ya.h pata;njali-;si.syebhyo ...) seems to be contained in the first sentence. This verse, along with Raaja-tara:ngi.nii 1.176 (parvataad aagama.m ...), has given rise to scholarly literature for over 100 years. It should by now be clear from the points made in this literature that both the sources do not talk about a loss of the Mahaabhaa.sya text, but about a loss of the aagama of the text (knowledge of the tradition of the text -- what Pata;jali presupposed and/or how Pata;njali was understood before the time of Candraacaarya and Bhart.r-hari).

The details of the literature I have in mind can be gathered from Prof. George Cardona's surveys of studies done on Paa.nini's grammar: 

Cardona, George. 1976. Panini: a Survey of Research. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Indian reprints: 1980, 1997. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 

Cardona, George. 1999. Recent Researches in Paninian Studies. Delhi: Motilal Banarssidas.   

ashok aklujkar

[prafulla mishra]

The time ascribed to Bhaasa is later than Patanjali. If at all ref. of Vasavdutta and udayana name occur let them be examined accordingly.

Prafulla K Mishra

---

From: Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 20, 2010 2:14:49 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Mahaabhashyakaara Patanjali knew the work of Bhaasa Mahakavi – The Vasavadatta

--

[prafulla mishra]

Since you quote from MB, it appears the akhyayika may be a floatinf akhyayika and not of Subandhus'

Secondly Kalidasa refers to Udayankatha kovidaq gramavrddhan may be adopted by Gunadhya and subsequently the character  might be a symbol of a hero for which Bhasa, Subandhu and all others have adopted this character.

Prafulla K Mishra

---

From: subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, November 19, 2010 10:28:41 PM

[rniyengar]

Bhasa’s date remains uncertain. We can place him before 400 BCE. My
father late Prof.S.Rangachar published several of Bhasa’s dramas with
text, detailed introduction, translation etc. by collecting all
available information (Samskrita Sahitya Sadana, Mysore). Vaasavadatta
story is based on the Brihatkatha. Hence this cannot be an evidence
for claiming Bhasa should be before Patanjali. This has been pointed
out by several already. The dream scene is the originality of Bhasa
that is how the drama is named Svapna-vasavadatta. However, for dating
the following information is sharper than others:

Pratijna-YaugandharayaNa Act 4 verse 2 is

नवं शरावं सलिलैः सुपूर्णम् सुसंस्कृतं दर्भ कृतोत्तरीयम् ॥
तत्तस्य मा भून्नरकं स गच्छेद् यो भर्तृपिण्डस्य कृते न युध्येत् ॥

Kautilya’s arthashastra 10th book chapter 3 quotes this as the second
shloka below, in praise of loyal soldiers.

KAZ10.3.29/ api^iha zlokau bhavataH //
KAZ10.3.30ab/ "yaan yajJa.saMghais tapasaa ca vipraaH svarga.eSiNaH
paatra.cayaiz ca yaanti /
KAZ10.3.30cd/ kSaNena taan apy atiyaanti zuuraaH praaNaan suyuddheSu
parityajantaH //
KAZ10.3.31ab/ "navaM zaraavaM salilasya puurNaM susaMskRtaM
darbha.kRta.uttariiyam /
KAZ10.3.31cd/ tat tasya maa bhuun narakaM ca gacched yo
bhartR.piNDasya kRte na yudhyet - iti //

Hence there is a strong case to claim Kautilya quoted the verse from
Pr.Yau. Incidentally Pr.Yau makes one remember the famous vows
(Pratijna) of ChaaNakya usually equated with Kautilya. This similarity
can not be easily missed. If we place Kautilaya around 400 BCE Bhasa
would be at least a contemporary of Kautilya if not his senior.

regards
RN Iyengar

On Nov 20, 4:03 pm, prafulla mishra <mpraful...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Since you quote from MB, it appears the akhyayika may be a floatinf akhyayika
> and not of Subandhus'
> Secondly Kalidasa refers to Udayankatha kovidaq gramavrddhan may be adopted by
> Gunadhya and subsequently the character  might be a symbol of a hero for which
> Bhasa, Subandhu and all others have adopted this character.
> Prafulla K Mishra
>
> ________________________________

> From: subrahmanyam korada <korad...@gmail.com>

> On 11/20/10, Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya200...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 20 11 10
> > The violation of Pāṇinian rules is not necessarily an evidence for date.
> > Kālidāsa was posterior to Patañjali. But just note prabhraṃśayāṃ yo nahuṣhaṃ
> > cakāra, vismāpayan vismitam ātmavṛttau, viśrāmaṃ labhatām and a lot more
> > Best
> > DB.
>
> > --- On Fri, 19/11/10, navaratna rajaramnavaratna

> > <rajaramnavara...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > From: navaratna rajaramnavaratna <rajaramnavara...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Mahaabhashyakaara Patanjali knew the work
> > of Bhaasa Mahakavi – The Vasavadatta
> > To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
> > Date: Friday, 19 November, 2010, 10:19 PM
>
> >    I believe there is indirect evidence that Bhasa was not aware of
> > Patanjali's grammar since he violates Paninian rules (of Patanjali). It
> > could also mean that Patanjali had not yet assumed the authority that he
> > came to hold later.
>
> > N.S. Rajaram
>

> > 2010/11/19 Bhagwan Singh <bhagwan...@yahoo.co.in>

>
> > Thank you a lot for this information. I never thought that Bhassa may
> > ante-date patanjali.
> > BS
>

> > --- On Fri, 19/11/10, Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veera...@gmail.com> wrote:

> --...
>
> read more »

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Dear professor Aklujkar, Could we be a bit nearer the actual situation by interpreting grnthamaatre vyavasthitah (I do not exactly remember the sentence) not as 'reduced to a single manuscript' as is usually done but as 'left with only the text '? Even if we do this that all the suutras are not found in the extant Mahaabhaashya remains enigmatic.  As far as I find, the original has been irretrievably lost. Best DB --- On Sat, 20/11/10, Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca> wrote:

From: Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Mahaabhashyakaara Patanjali knew the work of Bhaasa Mahakavi – The Vasavadatta To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

ashok aklujkar

[Ashok Aklujkar]

Dear Prof. Bhattacharya,

Your response made me look at my wording again, and I discovered an oversight on my part. "Raaja-tara:ngi.nii 1.176 (parvataad aagama.m ...)" should read "Raaja-tara:ngi.nii 1.176 (candraacaaryaadibhir labdhvaa ...), Sorry for this. 

The texts of the crucial verses are:

Vaakyapadiiya 2.485-486: ya.h pata;njali-;si.syebhyo bhra.s.to vyaakara.naagama.h / kaale sa daak.si.naatye.su grantha-maatre vyavasthita.h // parvataad aagama.m labdhvaa bhaa.sya-biijaanusaribhi.h sa niito bahu-;saakhatva.m candraacaaryaadibhi.h puna.h // 

(If the detail brahma-rak.sasaaniiya in Pu.nya-raaja's commentary (really an abbreviated text of Helaa-raaja's so far undiscovered commentary on the second kaa.n.da) is to be accommodated by ignoring the superstitious element in it, parvataad can be understood as a corruption of paarvataad.)

Raaja-tara:ngi.nii 1.176: candraacaaryaadibhir labdhvaade;sa.m tasmaat tadaagamam (--> sahaagamam) / pravartita.m mahaabhaa.sya.m. sva.m ca vyaakara.na.m k.rtam // 

(Why tadaagamam must be a corruption of sahaagamam is pointed out in my article in the Radha Govind Basak commemoration volume. If this or any other article -- all listed in Cardona's two bibliographic surveys mentioned in my last post -- are inaccessible to you and you wish to read them, I will happily send their pdfs to you. Please let me know what the limit of your INBOX is.)

I have published four articles on the above-mentioned two texts (three on the VP text and one on the RT text -- the one specified just now). By including a fifth article that I have presented as a lecture, I intend to publish, one day, a book on "The Concluding Verses of Bhart.r-hari's Vaakya-kaa.nd.a." 

Although a few details of my views have changed over the years as my acquaintance with the Vaakyapadiiya and the Raaja-tara:ngi.nii grew, their basic historical understanding has not changed. The very fact that two independent works, the VP and the RT, speak of a recovery only of the aagama, as distinct from a recovery of a muula text or manuscript, should settle the issue, regardless of whether one agrees with this or that emendation.

The Mahaabhaa.sya is primarily a commentary on the Vaarttikas and secondarily on the suutras of Paa.nini. So, it does not seem problematic to me that it does not comment on all the suutras. Again, the very fact that the MB text refers to or presupposes several of the suutras on which it does not comment should establish that the author's intention was not to comment on all the suutras. 

Like all ancient works, the text of the MB has suffered in transmission, but not to the extent of justifying "the original has been irretrievably lost" as the conclusion. As I have suggested elsewhere, a MB edn based on South Indian and Kashmiri mss is badly needed. Kielhorn's work, done with the help of ;saastrins in Pune, admirable in its own time, is not sufficient for the current needs of research. It is almost entirely based on Devanagari mss, which, generally tend to be inferior to mss in South Indian scripts. 

;subham astu.

a.a.

[Ganesh R]

Dear Dr. Ashok Aklujkar,

I am very happy with your observations and me too agree with your understanding. The Trivendram plays - except  Svapna and to a very little extant Prtijnaa Naatika - are not penned by Bhasa, the great poet eulogized by Kalidasa. Even patanjali is not from Kerala. Your points are very well supported by relevant proofs. During my study on Bhasa from various angles including those of language, prosody, figures of speech, cultural studies and comparative analysis I have come to agree with most of the facts that Prof. N.P.Unni has revealed.

Thank you and with regards

ganesh

(Sataavadhaani Dr. R. Ganesh)

2010/11/20 Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca>

--

[S P Narang]

From the evidence of Kalidasa ( Megha0), it appears that Vasavadatta was a theme of the romantic story and that a number of scholars wrote on it including Bhasa, Subandhu and that referred to by Patanjali. To mix up all of them will be injustice to the authors of Vasavadatta. They belong to different times and places. Regards, spnarang

---

From: prafulla mishra <mpraf...@yahoo.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 20, 2010 4:24:44 PM