Date of Patanjali’s Mahabhisya
Summary
Determining the date of Patanjali’s Mahabhisya (Mahabhasya), a foundational work on Sanskrit grammar, has long been a contentious issue. Traditionally, scholars placed Patanjali and his commentary in the second century B.C., linking him to Pusyamitra Sunga, whose reign lasted from c. 185–149 B.C. The article opens by noting that early bibliographies by Winternitz and L. de la Vallée Poussin record numerous studies on the question. Scholars such as Bühler expressed doubts about the conventional dating, observing that the Mahabhisya contains verses and references that appear stylistically and thematically later than the second century B.C. The article analyses internal evidence from the Mahabhisya. It points out that the work quotes poetry in classical metres such as Mālatī, Praharṣiṇī, Pramitākṣarā and Vasantatilakā. The flourishing state of Kavya literature implied by these metres suggests a composition date closer to the early centuries of the Common Era when classical poetry was well established. Further, the Mahabhisya mentions the fully developed Vyuha doctrine of Vaishnavism, involving four emanations of Vishnu; such doctrinal maturity is absent in earlier inscriptions like the Nanaghat inscription (c. first century B.C.), implying that the commentary postdates these texts. The article notes that the Mahabhisya refers to cities such as Kancipura and Niskambanagara and includes verses about the Saka and Yavana peoples attaining respectable positions in Hindu society, indicating a social milieu after the integration of foreign groups. It even quotes a verse describing Pusyamitra’s sons reacting to a king’s speech, which some scholars interpret as a citation from a poem about the revolt against the last Maurya king. These references have led some historians to suggest that while Patanjali may have lived earlier, the Mahabhisya we possess was revised and expanded centuries later. The article therefore concludes that the extant Mahabhisya is unlikely to have been compiled before the second century A.D., and perhaps even later. This conclusion invites a reevaluation of the chronology of Sanskrit grammatical literature and the historical context in which Patanjali’s work circulated.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
By analysing metrical evidence, theological references and historical allusions, the article argues that the Mahabhisya is probably later than the second century B.C. The presence of classical metres and references to the Vyuha doctrine and to Saka and Yavana groups indicate a composition or revision date not earlier than the second century A.D. The study suggests that the accepted chronology of Patanjali and his work needs reconsideration.