The First commentary on the Mahabhasya
By M. Hiriyanna
Summary
The text discusses two main topics. First, it examines the *First Commentary on the Mahabhasya*, questioning the identification of its author, Bodhāyana, with the Vrttikara of the Brahmasutras as suggested by Prof. Winternitz. It highlights newly discovered Kerala works (*Attaprakara*, *Kramadipikd*, *Kitiatfakrama*) that might shed light on unresolved questions. The text also references a stanza from the *Guru-ratna-mali*, attributed to Sadagivendra, which mentions Gaudapida, Apollonius of Tyana, and Ayircya, potentially offering insights into Gaudapida’s dating and Apollonius’s alleged visit to India. Second, it critiques Mr. Jayaswal’s interpretation of a *Mahabhasya* passage in *Hindu Polity*, arguing that Jayaswal’s claim—attributing a rule to Katyayana instead of Panini—overlooks textual evidence and Patañjal’s established understanding. The author defends Patañjal’s sanity, emphasizing that later commentators universally accepted the rule as Panini’s, a view supported by critical editions unavailable to Patañjal. The text concludes by affirming the rule’s origin in Katyayana’s *Varttikas* and acknowledging the limitations of Patañjal’s access to critical editions.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
The publication of *The First Commentary on the Mahabhasya* raises significant questions about historical and scholarly attribution, particularly regarding the identity of Bodhāyana and the potential connections between Gaudapida and figures like Apollonius of Tyana. The discovery of newly uncovered Tamil-Malayalam dramaturgical texts offers hope for resolving longstanding uncertainties, though current evidence remains insufficient. The analysis of *Guru-ratna-mali* introduces intriguing claims about Gaudapida’s interactions with Apolonius and Buddhist figures, which, if validated, could reshape understanding of cross-cultural exchanges and chronological frameworks. Meanwhile, the critique of Jayaswal’s interpretation of Patañjal’s rule highlights the challenges of reconciling ancient textual traditions with modern scholarship, emphasizing the need for rigorous textual analysis. Collectively, these findings underscore the dynamic interplay between historical inquiry and textual discovery, advocating for continued exploration of understudied sources to illuminate India’s intellectual heritage.