Dr. Priyatosh Banerjee (Indian and Central Asian Scholar)

Dr. Priyatosh Banerjee (An Exponent on Indian and Central Asian Art)

SOME OBSEREVATIONS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PANINISUTRA VASUDEVARJUNABHYAM VUN AND THE ANTIQUITY OF THE BHAGAVATAS

Publication - Articles & Books

Reprinted from the Journal of the Bihar Research Society Vol. XL, Part I, 1954

Regarding the antiquity of the Bhagavatas we derive some valuable information from Panini’s grammer. Panini in his sutra iv, iii, 95 says that an affix comes after a word in the first case in construction in the sense of "this is his object of bhakti". As for example, one can say : Srughnabhaktirasya Sraughnah. Further, in the sutra iv, iii, 98 (Vasudevarjunabhyam Vun) he says that the affix Vun is added to the words Vasudeva and Arjuna in the above sense. The words formed according to the Sutra would be vasudevaka and Arjunaka (not Arjunaka because of the prohibition of Chha and an). An object of bhakti, similarly Arjunaka would refer to him to whom Arjuna was an object of Bhakti. Without going into controversies regarding Panini’s date we can accept for him a central date in C.500 B.C. and hold that Vasudeva was regarded as a divinity at least a century before Panini’s time, i.e. C.600 B.C. Mr. Umesh Chandra Bhattacharya1 is of the view that Bhakti is the sutras iv, iii, 95ff can hardly denote religious bhakti as according to the sutra achittadadesakalatthak it has been applied even to cakes (apupikah, etc.,) According to him Bhakti here stands for ‘fondness’ simply. Jayaswal holds that Panini used the term in the sense of ‘political or constitutional allegiance!1 In support of his argument he observes, "Take for instance the bhakti owed to the holders-of-the Janapadas in iv.iii.100. The hodlers-of-the Janapadas were certainly not worshipped. Take again the preceding sutra iv, iii, 97 where bhakti to Maharaja is stated. Nobody would contend that Maharaja either as a man or a country was worshipped. Agin, the scholars have taken note of Vasudeva, while Arjuna who is placed along with Vasudeva in the same sutra has been ignored. There is no evidence that Arjuna was deified. Bhakti to these two Kshatriyas is the political bhakti1."

We admit that bhakti referred to in the sutras iv, iii, 95ff has been used in a wide sense. But whatever may be the interpretation of this term with reference to Arjuna and Maharaja etc., we have no doubt that Bhakti applied to Vasudeva in the sutra iv, iii, 98 cannot be taken in any sense other than that of religious adoration as shown below. In other words, Vasudeva here is implied as a divinity and not in the sense of Vasudevadapatyam as under the sutra Rishyandhakavrishnikurubhyascha, iv, i. 114. If Vasudeva was regarded as a human being, then he being a Kshatriya could have been included in the sutra iv, iii, 99; Gotrakshatriyakhyebhya bahulam Vun which also comes under the adhikara of bhakti. Patanjali while commenting on the sutra iv, iii, 98 rightly raises the question as to why Vun is prescribed for Vasudeva though the affix Vun comes diversely after the words denoting gotra and Kshatriya. He suggested that the sutra iv,iii,98 has been devised to show the Purvanipata of Vasudeva(i.e., to show that Vasudeva being more revered should be placed before Arjuna in a compound though the latter begins with a vowel and has also fewer vowels than Vasudeva) or Vasudeva here is not the designation of a Kshatriya but a designation of Tatrabhagavat or tatrabhavat2. Keilhorn says that tatrabhagavat is found only in Banaras edition of the Mahabhashya and it is wrong reading, the actual word which Patanjali used it tatrabhavat as found in dozen other manuscripts1.

According to Keilhorn the tatrabhavat by which ‘Samjnaisha’ is followed ‘does not in the least suggest that the personage denoted by the proper name is a divine being, the word indeed conveys an honorific sense, but it would be equally applicable to a human being2. Though tatrabhavat in applicable both to a divine being and a human being, yet from the trend of his arguments it appears that he is inclined to consider Vasudeva as a human being rather than a divine one.

The above theory of keilhorn has been controverted by Keith and R.G. Bhandarkar in whose opinion tatrabhavat as used by Patanjali in his commentary on the sutra iv, iii, 98 has been used to signify Vasudevaas a divinity and not as a human being3. Further, keilhorn himself has pointed out that the precise phrase samjnaisha tatrabhavatah which occurs with regard to Ka (in the sense of Prajapati and not sarvanama) in the Mahabhashya (J.R.A.S., 1908, p.503) So his own views i.e., the example of ka as a tatrabhavat, go to prove that mortal. Thus Kaiyata (though a later authority, 11th century A.D.) who describes Vasudeva of the sutra in question on the basis of Patanjali’s commentary as nityahparamatmadevata-Visesha iha Vasudevo grihyate is precisely accurate in equating Paramatmadevata with tatrabhavat when he finds Prajapati also so described.

Now we may refer in brief to the opinions of other grammarians on the point. The authors of Kasika (Jayaditya and Vamana) lay down; Vasudevarjunasabdabhyam Vun pratyayo bhavati so’sya bhaktirityetasmin vishaye. Chhanorapavadah, Vasudevobhaktirasya, Vasudevakah. Arjunakah. Nanu Vasudevasabdad gotrakshaatriyakhyebhya iti vunastyeve… Kimartham Vasudevagrahanam, samjnaisha devata-viseshashya, na kshatriyakhya, alpachtaramaja dyadantamiti, varjunasabdasya purvanipatamakuryan jnappayatya-bhyarhitam purvam nipatatiti. From the above it si clear that Vasudeva if treated as human being could have come under the sutra iv, 3, 99 (gotrakshariyakhyebhyo bahulam vun, as vun makes no difference in form or accent of the word Vasudeva). So the very fact that he has been included in sutra iv, 3, 98 shows that he was regarded as a divinity in Panini’s time. Again this is to be noted that Vasudeva precedes Arjuna in the sutra though according to grammatical rules, ‘Alpachataram’, ‘Ajadyadantam’, Arjuna should have come first. This also implies that Vasudeva was considered to be more revered than Arjuna and consequently came to be placed first. Further, that Vasudeva was more revered than Arjuna just on the ground of his divinity and not on any other reasons (i.e., age or other consideration ) has been fully brought out in Jinendra buddhi’s Nyasa (abhyarahitatvam tu Vasudevasaabdasya devata-viseshatvad).

This latter grammarians hold that from all points of grammatical consideration vun or vun makes no difference in case of Vasudeva. They further observe that the maxim of Abhyarhitava is not alsways strictly maintained. According to them Abhyarhitatva has been otnroduced by way of discussion. The real reaosn why Vaudeva has been included in the sutra iv, iii, 98 and placed before Arjuna is that Vasudeva has been taken for a divinity and not as a human being. They place reliance on Patanjali’s suggestion: "Samjnaisha bhagavatah iti" and explain the word Vasudeva as below:

"Sarvatrasau samastamcha vasatyatreti vai yatah |

tato ‘sau Vasudeveti vidvadbhih parigiyate ||

Iti smriteh paramatma iha vasudevaha,

Sarvatrasau vasali sarvamatra

Vasaaliti va vyulpatya Vasuh,

Bahulakadun Vasuschasau

Devascheti vigrahah/Tatha cha neyam

Gotrakhya, napi Kshatriyakhyeti

Yukta eva vunvidhih

From the preceding it is clear that the authors of the Kasika, and Kaiyata, and the latter grammarians regard Vasudeva as a divinity and leave no doubt a sto correctness fo their interpretation, though they are much later in time. They have fully established the point that Panini used and could have used Vasudeva here only in a sense of a divine being.

Regarding Arjuna one notices that from the very beginning he was regarded as an incarnation of Nara who is often mentioned in the Mahabharata along with Narayana as double divinity1. In Book I of the epic it siad that Narayana took away the nectar from the Danavas accompanied by Nara and consequently there was an encounter between the gods and Danavas for it. Narayana came to the battle-field, with Nara possessed of a heavenly bow. Nara defeated the Asuras and he was entrusted with the nectar for its preservation. In Book iii Nara and Narayana are represented as two divine sages in whose Asrama at Badari the sons of Pandu liven for sometime. Vasudeva has been identified with Narayana and Arjuna has been regarded as an incarnation of Nara in the epic2. The association of Arjuna with Vasudeva in the sutra iv, iii, 98 may have bearing on this fact, buyt we are not sure. To explain the significance of the sutra it is not necessary to attribute divinity to Arjuna, as to Vasudeva, though the former is regarded in the Mahabharata as an incarnation of Nara and a constant associate of Narayana. The grammarians, such as, the authors of the Kasika and others consider Arjuna as a Kshatriya and offer very cogent reasons to account for his inclusion in the sutra iv, iii, 98. They say that as a Kshatriya Arjuna ought to have come under th sutra iv, iii, 99 (gotrakshatriyakhyebhvobahulam vun), but it has not been so because the addition of vun would have given rise to an undesirable form such as Arjunaka (as vun is bound to cause vriddhi of the first vowel of the word Arjuna). Thus the Nyasa on Kasika lays down Nanu …. Arjunasabda Kshatriyakhyaah Tasmaduttarasutrene preptasya vuno pavado yuktah etc.

In summing up we may say: 

(I) if the word Vasudeva is treated as a Kshatriya, there is no difficulty in including him in iv, 3, 99 as Vasudeva being already in adyodatta word, the addition of vun would have made no difference in regard to its form or vowels. His inclusion in iv, 3, 98 shows that he was regarded by Panini as a divinity as Patanjali supposes, and other grammarians fully assert. 

(ii) Arjuna, though he is Kshatriay as a Kasika hold cannont come under the sutra iv, 3, 99 as the addition of vun would have given rise to the form Arjunaka which is undesirable. 

(iii) Whether we regard Arjuna as a divine being or not, the Vasudeva of the Sutra iv, 3, 98 can on no ground be regarded as one other than a divine being.  In other words, while explaining the sutra iv, 3, 98 it is not necessary to regard Arjuna also as a divinity (as it is in the case with Vasudeva) though from other sources we know that Arjuna too was looked upon as divine being.

   

Research Papers  [ 001 - 050051 - 100 | 101 - 150 | 151 - 200 | 201 - 250 ]

[ Resume | Contact Me ]

[ Books | Lectures | Education | Experience | Scholarships | Countries visited]

Resume of   Dr. R. Banerjee