1883.] Rajendralala Mitra— On GoniJcaputra and Gonardiya. 
261 
On GoniJcaputra and Gonardiya as Navies of Patanjali.—By Rajen¬ 
dralala MlTRA, LL. D., C. I. E. 
[Received Oct. 4; Read Nov. 7, 1883.] 
In the Preface to my edition of the Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali I 
have quoted, without demur, from Goldstiicker’s learned essay on Panini, 
a passage in which Patanjali is described to have been the son of one 
Gonika, and the country of his nativity to have been Gonarda. These 
facts are indicated by the epithets GoniJcaputra and Gonardiya which 
occur in the Mahabhashya, and have been so explained by the distinguished 
exegetists Ivaiyata and Nagoji Bhatta. Nor are other authorities wanting 
to support this view of the case. Heinachandra, in his well known glossary, 
the AbJiidJidna-chintamani, gives Gonardiya as a name of Patanjali.* 
Following him Professor Taranatha Tarkavachaspati. in his dictionary, the 
Ydchaspatya, makes Gonardiya a synonym of Patanjali. f The identifica¬ 
tion, however, notwithstanding these authorities, seems to be still open to 
discussion, and it is one which is worthy of enquiry. 
The only passage cited by Goldstucker from the Mahabhashya in 
which GoniJcaputra is named, is the commentary on Panini’s Sutra, I, 4, 61. 
The subject under consideration being the use of the accusative case 
under certain circumstances, Patanjali, after quoting several karikas, 
and discussing all the pros and cons with appropriate examples, asks, 
with reference to the last example adduced, “ What should be the correct 
form ? ( atJieJia Jcatham bJiavitavyam ) the leader of the horse to Srughna,” 
(netasvasya sruyJinamiti) (accusative), “ or the leader of the horse of 
Srughna” ( ahosvinnetdscasya srugJmasyeti) (genitive), and then concludes 
by saying, “ both according to Gonikaputra” ( ubhayathd goniJcap atrajj)\. 
Who this Gonikaputra is, is not pointed out by him, nor by Kaiyata ; 
but Nagoji Bhatta explains that he is the same with the great com¬ 
mentator himself, ( GoniJcdputro bhdsJiyaJcdra ityahii), and Dr. Goldstucker 
takes this to be conclusive. Apart from this gloss of Nagoji, no European 
scholar, however, reading this passage, can for a moment suppose that the 
author is here giving his own opinion. No European author would do so in 
such a way, and it is rarely that Indian authors indulge in such egotisms. 
There are a few doubtful instances, but, those apart, the practice is quite 
* *rra^n?%T i 
+ I 
' Vj 
J Kielhorn’s edition, p. 336. All the quotations from the Mahabhashya, except 
when otherwise specified, have been taksn from tho same edition, and the page re¬ 
ferences refer to it. 
M M 
