A Short note on Mr. Jayaswal's interpretation of a Mahabhasya passage in his "Hindu Polity" (p. 122)
By K. G. Subrahmanyam
Summary
The text critiques Mr. Jayaswal's interpretation of a Mahabhasya passage in *Hindu Polity* (p. 122), where he attributes confusion in Patañjalis’ grammar to treating a Katyayana Varttika as a Panini Sutra (IV.2.104). The author argues this claim is unfounded, noting that Patañjalis’ interpretation aligns with later scholars and that Jayaswal overlooks the *anvaya* technique—verbatim quotations in Sastric texts for contextual discussion. The critique highlights that Jayaswal misrepresents Varttikas (e.g., Nos. 21–22) as direct quotations of Panini’s rules, which are actually independent statements. The author further questions Jayaswal’s assertion that reclassifying the rule as a Varttika clarifies its meaning, emphasizing that no rule can belong to both Katyayana and Panini. The text also challenges Jayaswal’s historical assumptions, such as the anachronistic attribution of the name "Damis" to a Saka chief and the Buddhist identity of Ayircya, which could impact dating Gaudapida and verifying Apollonius of Tyana’s visit to India. The critique concludes by acknowledging Jayaswal’s creativity but deeming his arguments unsupported, referencing a prior defense of Panini’s rule (IV.3.98) as evidence of Vasudeva worship. In a separate section, K.G. Subrahmanyan identifies editorial errors in the *Abhidharmakosavyakhya* passage, noting uncorrected mistakes in Lévi and Stcherbatsky’s editions and Poussin’s
Conclusion
This analysis challenges Mr. Jayaswal’s interpretation of Patañjal’s perplexity regarding a Mahābhāṣya passage, arguing that his claim misrepresents Patañjal’s intent and Sāstric methodology. By re-examining the textual evidence, the critique highlights that Jayaswal’s attribution of confusion to Patañjal stems from overlooking the *anvāra* technique—verbatim quotations in Sāstric debates—and misinterpreting the temporal gap between Kātyāyana and Pāṇini. The author contends that Jayaswal’s theory, while ingenious, lacks textual support and ignores the contextual logic of Kātyāyana’s commentary. The critique underscores the importance of critical editions and contextual analysis in interpreting ancient texts, asserting that Jayaswal’s claims rest on speculative assumptions rather than rigorous philological grounds. Ultimately, the note emphasizes the need for greater scholarly caution in attributing cognitive dissonance to historical figures without conclusive evidence, ensuring interpretations align with established S