Read Book Online : http://www.archive.org/stream/auchityalamkarao00peterich#page/n3/mode/2up

Download pdf Book : http://ia700306.us.archive.org/27/items/auchityalamkarao00peterich/auchityalamkarao00peterich.pdf

The first paper is entirely devoted to just one comment of Patanjali in his mahabhashyam (expanded commentary) on Panini which is discussed to place his time as 3 centuries BC or 4 centuries AD. Bhandarkar had argued that the comment shows Patanjali was contemporaneous with Mauryas whereas Peterson arugues that Patanjal refers to Mauryas in the past tense hence he came after Mauryas. What is that comment which is so vehemently contested? While the English were suspected of bringing Indian antiquity forward as after Christ, Indian scholars were suspected of pushing back Indian antiquity to before Christ to demonstrate the superiority of the Indian culture. Whatever the case, the erudition displayed by both sides and the diligence they deployed to interpret and translate difficult Sanskrit are amazing.

The argument is about a whether according to Panini a certain affix (suffix) "ka" is to be appended to Shiv, Skanda and Vishakh or not. These three are names of gods. The rule roughly translated says: " The affix 'ka' need not be applied as the images of these gods though traded by the Mauryas for gold (money), were originally intended for worship." The affix 'ka' denotes vendibility or saleability of something. The one of contention was whether Patanjali while citing Panini's rule, refered to Mauryas in the past tense or in the present tense. It seems that this issue is hotly discussed by many commentators. Be that as it may, the funny and more instructive thing is that the Mauryan kings did use idols of these gods to generate revenue - fact most commentators have completely missed.

First time I ever saw a paper where footnotes are longer than the main argument!

@SS :) Again, I feel constrained to point out that the fact that this is one of the most discussed issues as far as the evolution of temples and idol worship in the sub continent is concerned, the fact that the Mauryans (arguably) encouraged the worship of idols and the setting up of temples to augment revenues. Chanakya always had an eye on how to squeeze out more and more revenues from all aspects of social, religious and political life!!

No objection. State and Religion in all advancing societies worked together to cement the emerging feudal system. Point is, Patanjali gives examples from contemporary life to illustrate rules of grammar.

I hope you use the term feudal loosely and not in its technical sense because the Mauryan administration was not feudal, it was a highly centralised administration. The methods of increasing and appropriating the growing agricultural surplus were very different from those used in a feudal society. You may be in for another long note on the administrative set up of the Mauryans. ( It will be part of the plot in my next book also !!) Increase in the land under the plough, improved systems of cropping, irrigation and agricultural tools were hallmarks of the Mauryan period. The state appropriated the surplus and used to fund a huge standing army( as opposed to feudal armies which are called up at need) which was the core of its over arching military power and establishment of empire. There were numerous methods to increase the area of agricultural land and incentives provided for doing so. ( I shall avoid the temptation to go into further detail!) It is an interesting fact that reading Panini gives us so much information about so many different aspects of life in those times!

I am but a novice in these matters. It will be great to know how the agricultural society developed and how it formed the unprecedented surpluses for empires to thrive on. I do not think the term feudal as understood in the western sense would apply to India where feudalism seems to have developed differently. The main point of departure was perhaps related to ownership of land and how cultivation was organised. I also tend to think that the implements of agricultural production (of which the main stay is the ploght - "hal" preceded the development of weaponry. Metal is required for both. But I think the metal-works were a product first of agricultural society usurped by horse-borne tribes (aryans) for superioriy in wars.In the Indian context, the Mauryan period may be the era when you had societies at different stage of development co-existing within the same "empire" under a great process of consolidation. In this process, all the achievements f respective tribal groups were being put into the same melting pot. It will be really nice if you you are developing these themes in historical writings or in fiction based on history.

The process of researching and understanding is on for me... You are right about the the co existence of societies in different stages of development being woven into a whole under a great process of consolidation. One of the most interesting features of this period and the reason why i find it so endlessly intriguing. Have to learn more about it.