s contained
in Patanjali's Mahabhashya. It is always dangerous to draw such
inferences, and especially so when it is known that, according to the
tradition current amongst Hindu grammarians, some portions of
Mahabhashya were lost, the gaps being filled up by subsequent writers.
Even supposing that we should consider the expression quoted as written
by Patanjali himself, there is nothing in those expressions which would
enable us to fix the writer's date. For instance, the connection
between the expression "Arunad Yavanah Saketam" and the expedition of
Menander against Ayodhya between B.C. 144 and 120, relied upon by
Goldstucker is merely imaginary. There is nothing in the expression to
show that the allusion contained therein points necessarily to
Menander's expedition. We believe that Patanjali is referring to the
expedition of Yavanas against Ayodhya during the lifetime of Sagara's
father described in Harivamsa. This expedition occurred long before
Rama's time, and there is nothing to connect it with Menander.
Goldstucker's inference is based upon the assumption that there was no
other Yavana expedition against Ayodhya known to Patanjali, and it will
be easily seen from Harivamsa (written by Vyasa) that the said
assumption is unwarranted. Consequently the whole theory constructed by
Goldstucker on this weak foundation falls to the ground. No valid
inferences can be drawn from the mere names of kings contained in
Mahabhashya, even if they are traced to Patanjali himself, as there
would be several kings in the same dynasty bearing the same name. From
the foregoing remarks it will be clear that we cannot fix, as Weber has
done, B.C. 140 as the maximum limit of antiquity that can be assigned to
Patanjali. It is now necessary to see whether any other such limit has
been ascertained by Orientalists. As Panini's date still remains
undetermined, the limit cannot be fixed with reference to his date. But
it is assumed by some Orientalists that Panini must have lived at some
time subsequent to Alexander's invasion, from the fact that Panini
explains in his Grammar the formation of the word Yavanani. We are very
sorry that European Orientalists have taken the pains to construct
theories upon this basis without ascertaining the meaning assigned to
the word Yavana, and the time when the Hindus first became acquainted
with the Greeks. It is unreasonable to assume without proof that this
acquaintance commenced at the time