This page has not been fully proofread.

INTRODUCTION
 
79
 
incarnations of Visņu in 285. Unfortunately, all three stanzas belong to
the second group, so that their dates need not coincide with that of
Bhartyhari.
 
It might have been easier to attack the problem had anything been
known with certainty about other works by the samo author, or any reference
to him by early poets But we have already seen that Kşemendra, Sridharadasa
and Bhīmārjunasoma know the name but not the stanzas of Bhartrhari. The
earliest known reference to a great poet Bhartrhari is by Somadeva in his
Yašastilakacampū [959 A. D.], though nothing is said there of any of the
śatakas; but Somadeva gives stanza 3 as by Vararuci-Katyāyana, while its
philosophy was familiar to Buddhists from Digha-nikaya 26. 21-22. Similarly
for Merutunga, who givos a Bhartṛhari legend at the end of his Prabandha-
cintāmaņi [1304 A. D.], only to report our stanza 50 as by Bhartṛhari's
teacher (with our 400 as Bhartrharis rejoinder)! As for other writings,
we have disposed of the apocryphal Vitavṛtta and Vijñānaśataka. Occasionally,
one hears of some other work by our Bhartrhari, but it has been
impossible to run any such effort to earth. Among them may be mentioned
the Rāhatakāvya to which Nathurama Premi refers (without being able to find
it now) on p. t of the preface to his edition of Subhacandra's Jñānārņava
[Bombay, NSP, 1907]; and a 22-stanza Rāmāyaṇa. We have, therefore,
only general tradition to guide us as to the authorship of the satakas.
 
5. 2. The traditions. There are four major candidates for the honour.
The best known is the grammarian Bhartrhari who wrote the Vākyapadīya,
and whose death, according to I-tsing, occurred about A. D. 652. There is
nothing in common to the two except the name, and as the Täkyapadīya is the
last work in the great tradition of classical Sanskrit grammar, the solecisms we
have noted earlier would seem to exclude the possibility of identification.
Moreover, the author of our group I stanzas could not have lived so late as the
7th century. Finally, that Bhartyhari, on reading I-tsing closely, is seen to
be an ardent Buddhist [not the voluptuary that Max Müller, J. J. Meyer and
others have mistakon him to be], but there is nothing in our collection that
could be traced to such an author.
 
A king Bharthari is mentioned in Taranatha's history of Buddhism
[A. Schiefner: T.' s. Geschichte d. Buddhismus, p. 195] as ruler of Malavă and
descended from a long line of Malava kings; the epoch is ambiguously stated as
at the time of Dharmakirti's death. If the Buddhist logician Dharmakirti is
meant, we have again to solve another problem of date, but it would be
difficult to push the time back beyond the 7th century. However, this king
seems to be intimately linked to another even more legendary figure, the
Natha-panthiya siddha Bhartrhari. In Taranath's history, the name of
Jalandhara, another Natha pontiff, occurs soon after that of the king, so that
the association is not modern. But confusion has put Bhartrhari as the
brother in fact or by adoption-of a king Vikrama, who is in turn identified
with a supposed founder of the Vikrama era of B. C. 57. There is, in any
case, nothing whatsoever to show that this double Bhartṛhari ever wrote any
Sanskrit poetry, though many of our Rajasthani MSS have Natha dedications
80 that the scribes seem to have made up their minds about the