Home > Digital Library > Contribution by External Scholars > Papers by Dr. Priyatosh Banerjee >   

Some Observations on the Interpretation of the P¡¸inisutra V¡sudev¡rjunabhy¡m VUN and the Antiquity of the Bh¡gavatas

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

By

 Priyatosh Banerjee

Regarding the antiquity of the Bh¡gavatas we derive some valuable information from P¡¸inis grammar. P¡¸ini in his s£tra iv, iii, 95 says that an affix comes after a word in the first case in conntruction in the sense of "this is his object of bhakti". As for example, one can say : Srughnobhoktirasya SraughnaÅ. Further, in the s£tra iv, iii, 98 (V¡sudev¡rjunabhy¡m Vun) he says that the affix Vun is added to the words V¡sudeva and Arjuna in the above sense. The words formed according to the s£tra would be V¡sudevaka and Arjunaka (not Ërjunaka because of the prohibition of chha and a¸).  V¡sudevaka would denote a person to whom V¡sudeva was an object of bhakti, similarly Arjunaka would refer to him to whim Arjnna was an object of Bhakti. Without going into controversies regarding P¡nini's date we can accept for him a central date in C.500 B.C. and hold that V¡sudeva was regarded as a divinity at least a century before P¡nini's time, i.e. C.600 B.C. Mr. Umesh Chandra Bhattacharya1 is

of the view that Bhakti in the s£tras iv, iii, 95ff can hardly denote religious bhakti as according to the s£tra achitt¡dade'sak¡k¡¶¶hak it has been applied even to cakes (¡p£ppikaÅ, etc.) According to him bhakti here stands for 'fondness' simply. Jayaswal holds that p¸ini used the term in the sense of 'political or constitutional allegiance ! In support of his argument he observes, "Take for inrtance the bhakti owed to the hoders-of-the Janapadae in iv. iii. 100. The holders-of-the Janapadas were certainly not worshipped. Take again the preceding s£tra iv, iii, 97 where bhakti to Mah¡r¡ja is stated. Nobody would contend that Mah¡r¡ja either as a man or a country was worshipped. Again, the scholars have taken note of V¡sudeva, while Arjuna who is placed along with V¡sudeva in the same s£tra has been ignored. There is no evidience that Arjuna was deified. Bhakti to these two Kshatriyas is the political bhakti2".

We admit thst bhakti referred to in the s£tras iv, iii, 95ff has been used in a wide sense. But whatever may be the interpretation of this term with reference to Arjuna and  Mah¡r¡ja etc., we have no doubt that Bhakti applied to V¡sudeva in the s£tra iv, iii, 98 cannot be taken in any sense other than that of religious adoration as shown below. In other words, V¡sudeva here is implied as a divinity and not in the sense of V¡sudev¡dapatyam as under the s£tra Rishyandhaka¤ish¸ikurubhya¿cha, iv, i. 114. If V¡sudeva was regarded as a divinity and not in the sene of V¡sudev¡dapatyam  as a human being, then he being a Kshatriya could have been included in the s£tra iv, iii, 99 Gotrakshatriy¡khyebhyo which also comes under the adhik¡ra of bhakti. Pataµjali while commenting on the s£tra iv, iii, 98 rightly raises the question as to why Vun is prescribed for V¡sudeva though the affix Vuµ comes diversely after the words denoting Gotra and Kshatriya. He suggested that the sutra iv, iii, 98 has been devised to show the p£rvanip¡ta of V£udeva (i.e., to show that V¡sudeva being more revered should be placed before Arjuna in a compound though the latter begins with a vowel and has also fewer vowels than V¡sudeva) or V¡sudeva here is not the designation of a Kshatriya but a designation of tatrabhagavat or tatrabhavat3. Kshatriya says that tatrabhagavat is found only in Banaras edition of ths Mah¡bhashya and it is a wrong reading, the actual word which Pataµjali used is tatrabhavat as found in dozen other manuscripts.4

According to Keilhorn, the tatrabhavat by which 'Samjµaish¡ 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 being.5 Though tatrabhavat is applicable both to a divine being and a human being, yet from the trend ofhis arguments it appears that he is inclined to consider V¡sudeva 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 Pataµjali in his commentary on the s£tra iv, iii, 98 has been used to signify V¡sudeva as a divinity and not as a human being.6 Further, Keilhorn himself has pointed out that the precise phrase samjµaish¡ tatrabhavataÅ which occurs with regard to V¡sudeva occurs also with regard to Ka (in the sense of Praj¡pati and not sarvan¡ma) in the Mah¡bh¡shya (J. R. A. S., 1908, p. 503.) So his own views i.e, the example of ka as a tatrabhavat, go to prove that tatrabhavat refers to a divine being and not an ordinary mortal. Thus Kaiya¶a (though a later authority, 11th century A.D.) who describes V¡sudeva of the s£tra in question on the basis of Pataµjali's commentary as nityaÅparam¡tmadevat¡-Vi¿esha iha V¡sudeo g¤ihyte is precisely accurate in equating Param¡tmadevat¡ with tatrabhavat when he finds Praj¡pati also so described.

Now we may refer in brief to the opinions of other grammarians on the point. The authors of K¡¿ik¡ (jay¡ditya and V¡mna) lay down; V¡¡rjuna¿ad¡bhy¡m Vun pratyyo bhavati so'sya bhaktirityetasmin vishaye.  Chh¡nprapav¡daÅ.  V¡sudevakaÅ.  Nanu V¡sudeva¿abd¡d-gotrakhatriy¡khebhya iti van¡styese...Kimartham V¡sudevagraha¸am, samjµaish¡ devat¡-vi¿eshasha, na kshatriy¡khy¡, alp¡charamj¡-dyarhitam p£rvam nipatat¢ti.   From the above it is clear that Vasudeva if treated as a human being could have come under the s£tra iv, 3, 99 (gotrakshatriy¡khyebhyo bahulam vuµ, as vn makes uo difference in form or accent of the word V¡sudeva). So the very fact that he has been included in s£tra iv, 3, 98 shows that We was regarded as a divinity in P¡¸ini's time. Again this is to be noted that Vasudeva precedes Arjuna in the s£tra though according to grammatical rules, 'Alp¡chtaram', Aj¡dydantam', Arjuna should have come first. This also implies that V¡sudeva was considered to be more revered than Arjuna and consequently came to be placed first. Further, that V¡sudeva 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 Ny¡sa (abhyarhitatvam tu V¡sudeva¿abdasya devat¡-vi¿eshatv¡d).

This latter grammarians hold that from all points of grammatical consideration vun or vuµ makes no difference in cast of V¡sudeva. They further ob erve that the maxim of

Abhyarhitatva is not always strictly maintained. According to them Abhyarhitatva has been introduced by way of discussion. The real reason why V¡sudeva has been. included in the s£tra iv, iii, 98 and placed before Arjuna is that V£sudeva has been taken for a divinity and not as a human being. They place reliance on pataµjali's suggestion : "Samjµaish¡ bhagavataÅ iti" and explain the word V¡sudeva as below :

"Sarvatr¡sau samastamcha vasatyatreti vai yataÅ I

tato 'sau V¡sudeveti vidvadbhiÅ parig¢yafe  II

Iti sm¤teÅ param¡tma iha v¡sudevaÅ,

Sarvatr¡sau vasati sarvamantra

vasat¢ti v¡,vyutpaty¡ V¡suÅ,

B¡hulak¡duÆ V£su¿ch¡sau

deva¿cheti vigrahaÅ/Tath¡ cha neyam

gotr¡khy¡, n¡pi Kshatriy¡khyeti

yukta eva vunvidhiÅ I

From the preceding it is clear that the authors of the K¡¿ik¡, and, Kaiya¶a, and the latter grammarians regard V¡sudeva as a divinity and leave no doubt as to the cofrectnes of their interpretation, though they are much later in time. They have fully established the point that P¡¸ini used and could have used V¡studeva 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 Sara who is often mentioned in Mah¡bh¡rata along with. N¡r¡ya¸a as double divinily.7 In Book of epic it said that N¡r¡ya¸a took away the nectar from the D¡nanvas accompanied by Nara and consequently there was an encounter between the gods and D¡navas for it. N¡r¡ya¸a 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 N¡r¡ya¸a are represented as two divine sages in

whose Ë¿rama at Badar¢ rhe sons of p¡¸·u lived for sometime. V¡sudeva has been identified with N¡r¡ya¸a and Arjuna has been regarded as an incarnation of Nara in the epic.8 The association of Arjuna with V¡sudeva in the s£tra iv, iii, 98 may have bearing on this fact, but we are not sure. To explain the significance of the s£tra it is not necessary to attribute divinity to Arjuna, as to V¡sudeva, though the former is regarded in the  Mah¡bh¡rata as an incarnation of Nara and a constant associate of N¡r¡ya¸a. The grammarians, such as, the authors of the Kshatriya and others consider Arjuna as a Kshatriya and offer very cogent reasons to account for his inclusion in the s£tra iv, iii, 98. They say that as a Kshatriya Arjuna ought to have come under the s£tra iv, iii, 9 9 (gotrakshatriy¡khyebhvo-bahulam vuµ), but it has not been so because the addition of vuµ would have given rise to an undesirable form such as Ërjunaka (as vuµ is hound to cause v¤iddhi of the first vowel of the word Arjuna). Thus the Ny¡sa on K¡¿ik¡ lavs down Nanu...Arjuna¿khyaÅ Kshatriy¡khyaÅ praptasya vuµo pav¡do yuktaÅ etc./

In summing up we may say: (i) If the word V¡sudeva is treated as a Kshatriya, there is no difficulty in including him in iv, 3, 99 as V¡sudeva being already in ¡dyod¡tta word, the addition of vuµ would have made no difference in regard to its form or vowels. His incluion in iv, 3, 98 shows that he was regarded by P¡¸ini as a divinity as Pataµjali supposes, and other grammarians fully assert. (ii) Arjuna, though he is a Kshatriya as the K¡¿ik¡ holds cannot come under the s£tra iv, 3, 99 as the addition of vuµ would have given rise to the form Ërjunaka which is undesirable. (iii). Whether we regard Arjuna as a divine being or not, the V¡sudeva of the s£tra iv, 3, 98 can on no ground be regarded as one other than a divine being. In other words, while explaining the s£tra iv, 3, 98 it is not necessary to regard Arjuna also as a divinity (as it is in the case with V¡sudeva) though from other sources we know that Arjuna too was looked upon as a divine being.

Papers by Dr. Priyatosh Banerjee

[ Contribution by Eminent Scholars | Digital Library ]

[ Home | Search  |  Contact Us |  Index ]