Skip to main content

Full text of "s.v.u.oriental journal part-1-4 vol-21-22"

See other formats



S. V. U. Silver JuMlee Number 



Dîrector. S.V. Oriental Research Insiitute 

Vol, xxi-xxn 



Copies : 300 


Dr. S, Sankaranarayanan (Editor) 
Dr. D. Sridhara Babu (Associate Editor) 
t)r. KS. Ramamurthy (Associate Editer) 
Dr. K,I Krishnamoorthy (Member) 
Kum. S.R. Matha (Member) 










Printedat: 12. 

&y. tjfîHVERsrrY press, tirupati 





L -Some Thoughts on the Indus Culture'' — The 
Need for an Anthropological Approach 

^Dr.H.D.Sankalîa ... 1 

2. The Methodology of Decipherment of the Indus 

Seript ^Dr.S.R.Rao ... 7 

3. A Note on the Malga Plates of Samanta ïndraraja 

— Dr^ Ajay Mitra Shasîrî .-. 19 

4. A Marathi Inscription from Kunkali 

— SrîKMBhadrî ... 27 

5- The Gangarîdâî 

-^ Dr. D.C. Sïfcat ... 31 

6. Some Remarks About the Construction of the 
Temple According to Marîcîsamhitâ 

^ Dr. Gérard Colas ... 43 

7. A Temple of Rijendracola I 

---Dr.M.D.Sampath ... 51 

8. Medhâtithi on Manu IX, 256 

— Dr. MA. Mahendale ... 57 

9. The Dattakacandrikâ and Ptîr¥amîmâmsa 

^Dr.S.G.Moghe ... 61 

10. The Metaphysics of Advaiîa Under a Modem 

— Dr. D. Arka Somayaji «• 69 

IL Th^^oncept of Freedom 

^Dr.SS.Barlingay •.. 75 

12. Some Aspects of BuddMsm 

' ^DriS^V. Kishan ... 89 



13. Forms of Philosophîcaî Literature and Vîrasaiva 

— Dr. VS. Kambî ... 99 

14. The Outlook on Sanskrit Grammar 

— Dr. Venkîîasubramonia lygr .,, 109 

15. Yâska as Quoted by Sâyanicirya 

— Mrs. Nomtta Dutt ... 129 

16. Karaka — A Brîef Study 

— Sri Bi Kutumba Rao .., 141 

17. Convertibility of Surds and Sonants — More Evi- 

— Sri K.G; Krîshnan ... 155 

18. 'Vâkyârtha' and *Kâvylrtha* în Indian Poctîcs 

— Dr. K, Krishnamoorthy ... 157 

19. Valmiki Ramayana on Royal Doties 

— Dr. C.5. Venkateswaran ... 165 

20. Identification ofKuntalcsvara 

— Dr. V.V. MirasM ... 169 


L Tribes of Ancîent India by Dr. Mamata Chou- 

~ Dr. D.C. Sirear ... 179 


— Èastrarûtnakàra Sri K.A» Sivaramakrtshna 

Sastry «• 1 

-^YidwanSrtRtRamasastri ... u 



1. s^J^êpSjySbgS tsoi^îgîrr^âô'' 


3. ?Tt^S% — «ftîRTï^^FSÏ^R^^^IM R^*i: 

— Pandîtarâja Sri. V. Subrahmanya Sastri ... 19 

— Dr. N.S. Ramanuja Taîacharya ..• 25 

— Sri N.C V. Narasimhacharya ••• 35 

— Dr. S. Sankaranarayanan ••• 57 

— Dr. S^B. Raghunathacharya ..• 75 

— Dr. K.J. Krishna Moorthy m» 1 

2. ^hg%. S)^eïT^ ^^^ ^6^^W ^^ B^oë'o 

— Dr. T. Kotîswara Rao «. 23 

— Sri. M. Prabhakara Rao .•• 39 

—^ SrL KV. Raghùvacharya ••• 57 

— Dr. Salâka RaghunathaÈarma •.. 73 


It gîves me great pleasure to bring out the présent S.V. Univcr- 
sity Oriental Journal Vols. XXI-XXIÏ, that go to make the S.V. Univer- 
sity Silver Jnbilee Number in order to mark the occasion of Silver 
Jubilee year (1979-80) of the University* Hère we hâve research papers 
of eminent Indologists, like Prof. H,D. Sankalia, Dr. S.R. Rao, Dr- 
D.C, Sircar, Prof. V.V. Mirashi, Prof. A. M. Sastri, Prof. S.S. Barlingay, 
Dr, M. A. Mahendale, Dr. Gérard Colas , Èasîraratnakata Sri K.A, Siva- 
ramakrishna Sastri, PandîîarUja Sri» V. Subramanya Sastri and many 
other repnted scholars. Thèse papers shed welcome light on différent 
aspects of Indîan archaeology, epjgraphy, culture, philosophy, litera- 
ture, logic and so on. I am deeply beholden to ail thèse writers for 
readily contributing their valuable research papers for this spécial 
number. I personally thank the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar and 
other authorities of the S.V. University for permitting the S.V* Unîver- 
sity Oriental Research Institute to bring out this Number. My thanks 
are also due to the Manager of the S.V. University Press and his staff for 
their cooperationin printing the volume. 

This volume is now placed before the world of scholars as a 
humble offcringof the S, V. University Oriental Research Institute and 
it is hoped that the next Vol. No. XXIII *'S,V. University Silver Jubilee 
Volume-Supplément" will foUow before long. While concludiog I 
crave the indulgence of ail the scholars for îssuing the présent volume 
rather late, due to some unavoidable circumstances. 


llth August, 1982. > Editer 




In the récent Seminar on the Harappan Culture or the Indus 
Civilization held by the American Institute of Indian Studîes, New 
Delhi at Srinagar, Kashmir, two sets of papers were read. While most 
of the Indiàn scholars confined their attention to the peripheral aspect 
of the problem, such as extension of the culture to the western part of 
Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, the foreigners examined in détail 
the existing knowledge from the largerhuman or anthropological point 
of view, and came to some startling conclusions. 

Jim G. ShaflFer, who isat présent an Assistant Professor inC*ase 
Western Unîversity, University Circle, Cleveland, Ohio; U.S A,, tried 
to show that the current views about the Indus civilization were'based 
on the old models about culture change formulated by Gordon Childe 
and others. Further, in the Indus civilization we do not findso much 
uniformity in ail the sites so far excavated. Regarding Mohenjodaro 
and Harappa, nor can we say that the towns were planned on a chess- 
board pattern. Thèse and other views were based on ill-digested infor- 
mation and now become very popular because of continued currency 
gîvento such views. 

The questions that require re-discussîon are : 

1. Whether the Mature Harappan Culture exhibits a bomogeneous 
material culture, such as developed craft specialization; specialized 
public architecture (défensive walls, granaries, great bath), literacy, 
extensive external trade, and finally a grit patterned urban centre. 

2. Do thèse singly and jointly reflect a highly stratified society 
with centralized authority ? 

109 — 1 


According to Shaffer, Mesopotainian raodels, evcn afîcr suitable 
adju&tments, are not applicable to the South Asian context, (e.g. tbe 
Indus Civilizaîion) 

Shaifer begbs by arguing that Mohenjodaro is five times bigger 
than Harappa and extensively excavated, However, its several unique 
features, i.e. the great bath, granary style, may not be a représentative 
saraple. Shaffer challanges the 40-year old view of Piggott that there is 
(was) so much cultural uniformity as to suggest cuhural stagnation. 
Though Shaffer admits that there exists a definite Harappan style and 
rcgularity in the types of objects associated wità the maiure Harappan, 
still thèse donoi reflect conservative cultural framework. nor centra- 
Ii5:ed political organization. 

And Shaffer cites some variations in pot tery types and fabrics 
frora Surkotada and Allahadioo, Hence he argues that régional varia- 
tions can be defined among the mature Harappan ceramics. Howevcr 
this was to be expected. For, firstly Piggott wrote 40 years ago, when 
little was known about Lothal, Surkotada, Kalibangan and Allahadino. 

Some more important régional variations among the far-flung 
sites are to be expected. The real question is this : '*Do we hâve certain 
fundamental types such as dish-^on-stand, goblets, perfora^ed jars, and 
the wel!-kaown black-on-red Harappan fabric?" 

Even though thèse constituted less than 1% of ail the pottery 
found at Allahadino, and restricted to spécifie ves^el shapes and sizes, 
still their very présence indicates that thèse were the most necessary 
ingrédients or traits of the mature Harappan way of life, whethrr it be 
Harappa, Mohenjodaro, Kalibangan, Lotbal, Surkotada or Allahadino. 
The question is *'How and due to what forces can we attribute this 
uniformity in material culture?" Was ît due to astrong, centralized 
government enforcing rules governing production^ and to the innate 
conservative perspective of the culture? Or, does this reflect the exis- 
tence of an extensive and intensive internai distribution and communi- 
cation systera as shown by Shaffer himself (1978) ? This may hâve restcd 
on an internai net work, the extent of such an interna! net work 
indicated by the variety and quantity of similar objects found throughout 
the vast geographical région occupied by the Harappan settlements.'' 
(Shaffer 1979). 

But who, what agency guaranted the successful functioning of 
this extensive trade ? History is replète with examples. Only when the 
Romans and Kusânas established their respective empires, the foreign 
trade prospered. So aiso it did during the later Mughal and British 
rule* Thus in whatever way we may argue and interpret the existence 


of a uniform life stylein the mature Harappan, we hâve to postulât© 
the existeoce of a stroeg centralized government. 

Shaffer also doubts the interprétation of the large brick structures 
atJHarappa and Mohenjodaro as granarîes. He dîscusses in brief their 
position among narrow streets, and concludes that there is no conclusîve 
évidence that thèse were granaries. 

No doubt we should hâve some more positive évidence. But what 
is available is not negligible. Second îy their position on a high mound 
at Mohenjodaro and on a low mound at Harappa docv^t not matter so 
much. For it dépends upon the nearness of the site of the granary to 
the river; and there was no such danger of its likely sub-mergence under 
water at Harappa. So it could be on a low mound. Shaffer also admits 
that thèse granaries are important architectural units. 

Lastly, Shaffer questioned Wheeler^s description of mature 
Harappan grid-iron lay-out and from it the existence of a centralized 
authority and a hîghly developed sensé of town-planning. Shaffer 
questions on thç basis of the récent study by Jansen (1977). Though 
ï havc not seen the original paper by Jansen, st Ml even the latter concè- 
des that there is the north^south axis in the First Street; and the 
existence of the second axis viz the cast-west one is not proved. Hc 
fiirther says that ail other streets turn corners and do not fit into the 
grid-iron lay out. However he notes that the gênerai orientation of ail 
structures except that in trench *M* i s according to the cardinal direc- 
tions. The same System of turning corners may be recognized on 
entering the houses, Hence Jansen conclndes that there are no straight 
txeito enter* 

Since Jansen has devoted so much attention to the houses, their 
lay ont at Mohenjodaro, we can accept his conclusions. Evçn then we 
must take into account the évidence whateverispublished from Lothal, 
from Kalibangan etc. Even the small site of AUahadîno had structures 
oriented towards the cardinal directions and were separated by streets and 
functionally distinct. And in this connection what Professer BB. Lai 
says in his very récent article is worth noting : 

Says Lai, regarding the site at Kalibangan : 

•*The townshîp inside was planned in the standard Indus style. It 
had a grid-pattern of the streets, running north-sonth and east-west, 
one set cutting the other at right angles (pL XVII) . Of the nort-soutb 
streets (pis, XVII and XVIII), four were noted to run ail the way from 
the north to the south, while one was limitcd to the south-western part. 
Itislikely that there was a corresponding (sixth) strcet in the north- 
eastern part, though owing to extensive érosion of this area it could not 


be coûfirmed. lo îhe east-west direction three streets were duly indenti- 
fied, whiletherewerereasoîiable iedications of a fourth one. In addi- 
tion, a Street was a!so identified on the inner side of thc northern 
fortîficâîîOû-walL whicli evidently provided a link for the north-south 
streets. Had îhis been not there, the latter streets would hâve met a 

dead-end in the fotiication wall The surmise can only be regardcd 

as a reasonable conjecture and nothiog more. 

The sensé of proportion of the Harappans was indeed remarkable, 
for even in regard to îhe width of the streetsit was operative. Thus; 
while the lanes measared 1.8eî., îhe streets were in its multiples, 
namely 3i m,, 5.4 m , and 7.2 m. Since vehicular trafic moved aloBg 
the wider streets, wooden fender-posts were provided at the exterior 
corners of ihe houses at the crossings. It may also be stressed that ail 
through the occupation of the site, invotving nearly ten mètres of 
venîcal deposits, no encroachment was made on streets. The only 
structures that ever exisied in the streets - and thèse had been put up 
coîîscioiisly as a part of the overàll plan — were small mud-brick 
plâtforms abutting the exterior of the houses; Thèse may hâve bcen 
used for an evening gossip, as are used their counterparts in the présent- 
day villages in. the area." ■ 

Furîher in Aliahadino too numcrous hydraulic features, including 
drains, wells and bath rooms are found, One large structure there with 
a mud brick platform at one end and a deep well at other may represent 
some type of public architectural unit. 

If a small site like Aliahadino has such well-marked architectural 
features, "and which hâve so impressed the chief excavator, Dr. Walter 
Fairservis (Jr.) that he had to say that the Aliahadino settlement was 
higbiy organized under a leadership familiar on a large scalc at Mohen- 
jodaro and Harappa and elsewhere (Fairservis 1979), should we not 
agrée with Marshall, Mackay, Wheeler, Rao, Lai, Thapar and Joshi 
thaï the Harappans had a sensé of planning -order and arrangement, 
much more îhan any witnessed in India so far, and also in the pre- 
historié cukures of Western Asia ? 

Agaio both Shaffer and Fentrcsc hâve drawn a wrong conclusion 
from the frequency of the occurrence of métal objects. The latter found 
that the highest frequency of métal objects at Mohenjodaro was not in 
îhe high mound with ail the public or the monumental architectural 
units. At Harappa they were evenly distributed. so also at Aliahadino 
Thîs îs but righî ând natural, One should not expect lools of daily use 
m publïc places or public monuments. Even today whether in a villace 
orciîy PoonaorDelhi, London or New York, toolsof daily use will 
be fouBd m larger numbers in commercial areas or habitations, but not 
m îhe Town Hall or Parliament House. 


It may be mentioned that like ShafFer and other American anthro- 
pologists, one of my pupils studied years ago the distribution of lingas 
and //liga-likes smali conical objects at Harappa and Mohenjodaro. 
No-where were thèse found in such a context as to infer ihat thèse 
were used for religious purposes. Again except one object, none of thèse 
was phallos like in appearance. Hence it appeared that Marshall and 
others were wrong in çoncluding that Linga-and-Yoni-worship was a 
featureof the Indus civilization {Sankalia 1977 and 1978). 

Thus by a careful contextual study of the old, Annual Survey 
reports ofBanerji, Bhandarkar, K.N. Dikshit, Ernest Mackay and John 
Marshall it is possible to arrive at a much différent interpreiaîion of the 
Indus Civilization than given by Marshall, Piggoît and Wheeler, and 
then followed uncritically by almost ali subséquent writers. It is aiso 
necessary to re-study, study in the original, many of the objects small as 
weli as large. But thîs few scholars outside Delhi or Karachi can do. 

Anyway a fresh anthropological outlook on the entire probJem, 
instead of the exclusive dévotion to pottery fabrics is an urgent need in 
Indian archaeology today. 


1. Faîrservis, (Jr.) 
Walter, A. 

2. Fentress Marcia, A. 

3. Jansen, Michael 

3a. Lai, B,B. 

4. Sankalia, H.D. 

(1979) : -Allahadino : Excava-tion of a 
small Harappan Site." Seminar on 
Harappan Culture in Inîdan Sub ContU 
nent, American Institute of Indian Studîes, 
New Delhi (Cyclostyled copy). 

{1916). .J\., An Investigation of Archaeolo- 
gical VariabilUy at Harappa and Mohen- 
jodaro, Ph.D- thesis, University of Penn- 
sylvanîa, Philadelphia, U.S A. 

(1977) ••Architectural Problems of the 
Harappan Culture** -//A International Con 
ference on South Asian Archaeology, 
Naples (In Press). 

(1979) "Kalibangan and in Indus Civili- 
zation - Essays in Indian Protohistory Ed. 
D*P. Agrav^al and Dilip Chakravarti, 

(1977), New Archaeology, Its Scope and 
Application in India, Lucknow. 


5. SaÉalia,H.D. ,.. {m],f!tàtmMkMkMi. 

tSanhlia,H.D, ... (1)79), 'The TecNqae of CompoÉe 

ModelliBg at Harappa" in ftàmnjdi- 
Bombay (In Press). 

7. Mer.IimG. ... (m9]"HarappanCnltnre;AReconsi(!^ 

ration" in the JflittfidroB tops Cu/. 
rican Institiite of Indian Studis; New 

Delhi (Jane 23-26), 1979. 

8.Mer,Jin,G. ... (1978), "Harappan extemal tradeiA 


ed.S.C.MalikandB,B.Lal, Siila,(ln 



Ev0luîion of the HarappanWriting : 

The Hafappa Givilizatîon wàs neithcr statîc nor short-lived Twô 
phases of thîs Civîlization namcly^ the mature and the décadent, havc 
Bow been distinguished as a resiilt of the récent archaeological excava- 
tions în Giîjtrat, Haryana, Punjab, western parts of UttarPradesh and 
in Jammu and Kashmir, It is the mature phase represented by the 
nrban centres of Harappa, Mohenjodaro/ Chanhudaro and Lothal 
(Period *A') which bas atracttd much attention becausc of the împres- 
sive buildings, civic amenities and the large numbcr of artefacts found 
inthesîtes. Thîs phase îs dated 27C0- 1900 b.c. (calibrated C-14datc). 
After the destruction of the urban centres primarily duc to recurrîng 
floods, the inhabîtants sought refuge înGujarat (including Saurashtra) 
in the south and in the Indo--Gangetic divide (Haryana, Punjab and 
Western U.P.) în the east More than three hundred settlements of the 
refugees, whîch are technically known as Late Harappan sites, bave 
beenplotted on the map. They lack the civic amenities and material 
prosperity enjoyed by the early Harappans and are essentîally rural în 
character. But ît may be noted that the Late Harappans continued to 
use one of the Harappan weîght standards as well as the Harappan 
scrîpt. There is now ample évidence of the use of the Harappan script 
în the Late Harappan levels at Lothal (Period B) Rangpur (II-B •- III)^ 
Rojdi, Zekada, ail in Gujarat, Alamgirpur (U.P.). Rakhi Shahpur 
(Haryana) and Daimabad (Maharashtra). At the last mentioncd site 
continuing writing was in use upto 1200 B.C. whereas at Theur near 
Poona the graffiti survives in later times too, The Megalithîc graffiti of 
Sanûr in Tamilnad {cîrca 500 bx.) serves as one of the links between the 
Late Harappan and Brâhmi scripts, The early Harappan script was a 
CQixed writing in which both true pictures of animate and inanimate 
3bjects and linear signs (Fig. lA) were used. It was sîmplified into a 
?>ure *Iinear* ('cursîve* according to Prof. Gelb) System in the Late 


Harappan period (Fig. IB). The process of simplification of writing by 
droppîng pictures was almosî complète in the late levels ofMohenjo- 
daro by 1900 B.c. It was further disciplined at Lothal and Rangpur by 
1500 B c. and continued ta be used upto 1200 B.c. in Daimabad (Fig^ 2). 

Structural Anaïysis of Indus Script : 

To decipher an unknown script such as tbe Indus Script (whîch 
includes both Harappan and Late Harappan scripts) written in an 
unknown langiiage it is necessary to détermine the stage of development 
of the Script - whether it is pictographic, idéographie, logpgrapbic, 
syllabîc or alphabetic. If the number of basic signs runs înto thousands 
the writing cannot be phonetîc. If the nnrobef of signs is less than a 
bundred the writing islikely tobe phonetici.e. alphabetic or syllabic 
and not pictographic or idéographie whcrein each sign stands for a 
pictnre or an idea. In order to détermine the total number of signs in 
Indus script we should distinguish the basic signs from their modified or 
accented forms. Basic signs are those which occnr independently in 
their unsophisticated form i.e. without any auxiliary signs such as short 
strokes being attached to them or without beiog joined with oiber basic 
signs. In Figures 3 and 4 the basic signs are distînguished from their 
accented forms as both occur independently in the Indus inscriptions. 
The purpose of attaching short strokes or diacriticlas to basic signs 
appears to be the same as in the case of Brâhmi script, namely the 
indication of the vowel value (Fig. 5) of a consonantal sign. The basic 
linear signs in Indus script had a vowelless consonant value to which 
short strokes were attached to serve as vowel-helpers. In addition to 
the use of short strokes as vowel-indîcators, there is a cup-Iike U sign 
which the Harappans used independently for the initial vowel 'a' and 
modified it ioto a^m^m etc., by attaching short strokes Sometimes it 
was attached to a basic linear sign (Fig. 5) or to a phonetized picture of 
'scorpion', *pipal leaf, etc, 

Another înteresting feature of tbe Indus Script is the joining of 
two or more basic signs to form compound signs wfaich look like pictures 
(Fig 6). The Harappans couM produce about 45 different-looking com^ 
pound signs by a permutation and combinaîion of 6 basic signs and 
attaching one or more short strokes to them. The purpose of such cotH- 
bînations was to from syîfables such as k^-h+a-^-k : hhak; p+a-^î : pat; 
d-ha+r : dar or conjunct consoQants (sûmyukta-akmrasj mdh as p+f : 
:pT;.'d+r^:'àri p+i:pt; etc. The principle of forming conjunct cont» 
sonants which the Harappans evolved continued to be fbllowed in 
Brahmi writing also. The structural anaïysis of tbepseudo pictures of 
tbe Indus Script bas revealed that they were not used as pictures but as 
conjuncts or syllabîes in which each basic sign had a différent phonetîc 

eAety oaDussce-ipr 

Phonetf^ed pictuies and linear signs 
in Logographic -cum - syllabic stage 

itvakha-draka (Draha) - saka 
^=Ç|= =tra-vcshû 

^ dvappa» 


Logographic ■ cum - SY'toblc > cum - 
alphabetic stage" ' 

f 111 y] 11!/ Y\'/ = <»-l«ï-'»-aeka 
^ ka-tr-dos 

U ^ III = tr- p|5ta - rk - trppta -arka 

syllabic stage 

^fl «sah-pcta 

Pseudo pictures in syllabic -cum- 
olptiûbetc sta^ 



I ûS " PP^"!^ = pôtaha 


Alphabetic (Linear) stage 

1 A'|f^»da-sci'dd-dasa'da 

2 Â^«A«pa"sa-da= passade 
:h''^«pa" pa-pp-râ« 


4 \FM={lfYÔ*p-t«3-ae-ba-ka-â. 
•^ ^ pakoe-bakâ 

pqeCpaye?) -dvoéataha -pa 

Analysis of some compound signs 

k k a 


tr 5 

lll. + ^ = iiiif =trâ 

P ^ ,„ 

0+§=ïï = P^<= 

Vfs h a . ai 

dva p p a 

l|+0 + 0+\/ = ^^appa 

P P â t ,p 


P P t a 

Û+0+A+' =PP^° 

r le 

^+Y = prk 

s h 3 

r^ + E =n =sh(sah^ 

hâ ho a k 

uf t ii}JJ + U+ K » l?hâk i= hhak 

P ^ A 


Fig. 1 

WRITING IN INDIA - 2000 B.C. TO 450 B.C. 



7ÔO-S00 a.c. 






MOO »tOO te. 


»00-|fcOO ftc. 


«00 t.. c* 


Ta*MûST uni • 

aOOtC (lïALtS} 


mm. m 

liMiii âiii 

Ô t)V {! txl « ><.^ I © P ç H B 8 t 
Fig. 2 














/ V.73J 






2 KÔG 


VPC '- 
























y. ko 





5 mm 









6 V>224 






7 ^<'Ui 






6 m? 









9 mm 







5te L.I3a above 





^•aa ; 












tO H^7Û 


















M- 272 

























* I 








U4I 1 

K:^ \U36 

h''« V.267 
f'»- 154 

l'W V56/ 

è'ho km 

vowasÂm ùiphthqngs 


INDUS: y or /1 - 9/a.V« a.^îf • oe/e^^-ao/o 

BRÂMHÏ! (^.a.jf.S. HITTITE f]^a 
- SEMITIC iÇ.fr,^ 

II. I.NITIALVOWELS' jj^y-^-a-opa. YyQ.p.ka.paka 

III. MEDIALVOWELS:)./\,/.4.y«.na,((,V.^. 

À^^U^y^.^ ••^a^^>^*n*y «'JJT-Iceilt/Ud 

^ « ppôl , 0- ay, ^ ♦ ^J|l » "//i'i ? î 

" A. INDUS: '.tï,ll.g,lll.q,/.,(),()JJ.^-p3,()*UU = @.pi 

I -le, y.ka, f -ka,^.ka,Y' l'^^' »'- |-",;f . s'a, 
|3.r, JD-ra, (©«rô, (»«ra«,£.K,|-ha,|.h5/|.hae,|Khao 

B. BRÀMHÎ: X-ta./•.tâ./C.U,^.iu,/,.tû,X-t*.H''''î■'^''*^•' 

Fig. 5 












(^ ' 0*1 *0*;l:,=p''**p*r'P«K* pp^" 




#"0'U*0*^ ******* 

4 ^ *;t''i «c*fi<**f**« 


% •0V*0*^'T*'*P*r-p3pro'ppf^ 


-*r » + ♦ h» « {"♦ r3 s r^ 


<^'0***O'P'^^*P'P^P*>' PP'^ 




.^WC-V+^-iBa^«iiiar or 




.y/*^ .k*r.lcr 


*ir °$ *''if *È ■^*'*r*'*3*'»***'*'» 


^ï Jk, _ •('•^•fli 




1^ «^t r >r*ha«>r|kM 




^ »;^,g.r,h.rb 

or V*V*U -'^♦l^-'»-tl^« 


^.^*Q «•!»«. 






y •v^w^U'X"''*''**'^'''''''^ 



or )(*\J*>|/*\J/.t»«*U.l<dtk 






l:-.t*d*p*a«l -tkqpat 




Ui -m*|.k-*lia.U/kka 



:jj .^|/.y.k*ka.kta 






.k*k«a-J -kka-^ 


jgrjks ^t^ =•■«' '•'' (?)= w y» 


^.y, I 



jj(j .\(/*| -k^ha.kfig 




Fig. 6 




































suna ' 


















Illl. SEMIV 















^ i!/ 



~ 5 
























u ^' 







^f^y ...11.11 .^ 















^ IX. ? 










j^ oiso Qcis os a semiuouiel 
HpsHarappon AND LHP= Late Horoppon 

Fig. 7 (p. 13) 








r"^ 33 




I V^-*', 





. b 

CI 9 


a , 




: V^AT 




Z) ^ 

^ l> D 

i^ û i 




^ f E 

^ , 








a 9 

BH1= N 





<s> o 





vi/ ^ 




h h 


<> r 





i ^ J 


o ^ 




> o*o- 










Vv v-n/ 


W ' 









rh ^ 



K i 

T* ^ 



4 jf^V 






a j 

K 4^$: 



20 ^ 



^ 1 






— î — j 

Fig- 7 (p. 10) 


Prof. Walter, A. Faîrservis (Jr*), Prof. Knorozov and his associâtes, 
Dr. Asko Parpola and Sri Iravatham Mahadevan hâve mistaken the 
pseudo pictures for ideographs and given the *word^ value for signswhich 
look lijke 'archer' (Fig. 6, 19) or 'bowman*, 'soldier holding shield' 
(Fig €,15-J6) and 'porter' {Fïg. 6, 21-24), but they are noihing but 
combinations of basic (Fig. 6) signs which can be easily followed by 
examinJBg a number of inscriptions in which they occur The reluctance 
on the part of Soviet and Finnîsh Scholars to analyse the pseudo 
pictures may be due to the fact that such analysis is bound to rcveal the 
non-Dravidian character of the Indus writing, namely, the présence of 
consonant dusters and conjunct consonanîs such as ptcm,, 
^ra, etc. which are not known in Tamil. The faiîure to analyse coin- 
pound signs is responsible for inflating the number of bàsic signs from 
about 50 or 60 to 400 An example is given beîow to drive home the 
point that différent combinations of the same 4 basic signs should not be 
treated as spearate basic signs as if donc by Mahadevan. Fairservis and 
others The basic signs for /?, r, Jfc, and r were combined înto (}) p-^r^ 
(2) r^k, {3)k + t, i4)p^t, {:^)p^p. (6) /+r, (7) rfr, t te Hère the 
basic signs are only four. The computer cannot suggest that compound 
signs shoud be analysed. It is the programmer who bas to do it Such 
analysis has revealed that there are only 52 basic signs in the mature 
Harappan Script and 22 in the Late Harappan Script. With such a 
small number of basic signs the Indus Script couîd not hâve been pîcto- 
graphic or idéographie. It can only be phonetic i;c. syllabic or alpha- 
betic. Even pictures of 'pipalleaf and 'scorpion' used in Harappan 
icript had auxiliary signs attached to them to serve as phonetic indica- 
tors (Fig:lC), Hencc we hâve to rule out the possibilityof the Indus 
writing being idéographie as assumed by some scholars. For example 
Mahadevan gives the value salya for the 'arrow' sign and vûA^/ia for the 
so-called *porter* sign which is in fact a compound sign of p+p+r + a : 
ppraorp + a-^p^r: papr (Fig. 6, 23). When the two occur together he 
reads*Sâlivahana* and equates it with Sâtavahana, a dynasty which ruled 
thousand five hundred years after the pseudo pictnre Vafionû ceased 1o be 
in use* ' 

Phonetic Value of Basic Signs : 

In the initial stage ail compound signs and pseudo pictures were 
analysed and the basic signs were identified by the présent writer, The 
next stage in the decipherment of an unknown script written in an 
unknown language is to assign a phonetic value to each sign. In doing 
so, it was thought safer to proceed from the known to tfae unknown, the 
known in this case being the Semitic (North and South) alphabetic 
writing found in Jérusalem Palestine and South Arabia and the unknown 
being the Indus signs. Surprisingly enough 17outof 22 linear basic 

109 — 2 


signs of Indus writing are identical with those in Semitic writing 
(Fig.7). ît is likely thatthe Sémites borrowed linear signs of the Late 
Harappan Script in circa 1500 b.c. The Indus siens are, therefore, given 
the samephonctic value which the comparable Semitic signs hâve. Two 
peculiar features of the Indus Script namely, the use of auxiliary signs 
as vowel-indicators aad the formation ofcompouad signs areaiso taken 
into account while reading the Indus inscriptions. 

Identification of the Indus Language: 

Initially one hundred and thirty Indus inscriptions containing 
basic linear signs which are identical with the Semitic signs were read, 
and a due to the language of Indus Seals was obrained. The occurrence 
of the words aeka, tr., happt (hapta fox sapta), dasa and sata for the 
cardinals one, three, seven, tenand hundrtd respectivejy was sigrificant 
as it suggests ihat the language was akin to CM Indo-Aryan (Vedic). 
Other words e.g. sada meaning 'eminent', Mû 'powerful', sah 'victo- 
rious', pâ 'protector', s3sa 'ruler' etc. occurring in seal-inscriptions gave 
further support to the viewthat the Indus Language belonged to the Indo- 
European family. The initial words reading pa, pat, paka, sâsa separated 
by a word-separator from the rest of the inscriptions in seals are found 
to be désignations of the owners of the seals mentioning their ranks such 
as 'protector', 'governor', 'ruler', etc. It is also observed that in some 
seals the proper names appearing after the désignation are placedin 
brackets , etc. Some names found in Indus seals e.g. Baka (Baka Dâibhya 
of Vedic famej, Gara (composer of hymns) and Kasapp (Kasyapa, a 
rsi), Drh (Druhu, a people), Pâpr(:Pipr), Dasa and Mana (: Manu) 
are preserved in Vedic texts. 

The Indus language is inflexional, for, the case-endings s, ae : e 
and ahias are found attached to nominal stems as in Sanskrit and 
Avestan languages. For example the words Baka+â: Baka, Baka,+ae: 
Bakae and Baka aha ■ Bakaha raeaning 'from Baka' 'to Baka' and 
'of Baka' respectively appear in the seals. Although ail the cases 
used m the Rgveda were not yet developed in the Indus language 
the most important ones for instrumental, dative and genitive were 
m use. The ioflexional character of the Indus script excludes it from 
tbenonmflexional (agglutinative) group to which the Sumerian laneuace 
belongs ^ '^ 

The Harappan scribes made a distinction between the voiced and 

vo.celess stops k and g, t and d, p and b, unlike in Tamil which does not 

d.sùn8„„h them. Another évidence for the non-Dravidian character of 

he Indus language, s the présence of conjunct consonants such as or 

tr, pta, etc. wihch are unknowc in Tamil. ' 


Fhoneîic Value of Non-Semhic Signs: 

Iriîhe second sti^gè of deciphefnnent two non^Semitic signs 
aatnely, tbe 'fish' and Siian', frequentiy occurring in the Indus scripr, 
hâve been given the phorietic value 5 from èahula and fit from nrinar 
respectivety. 'Sahulà" is the name of a variety of fish mentioned in the 
Vedic texts and the word nrinar stands for 'man' in the Rgveda. In 
assigning thèse values aJternate words for 'fish* and *man'* in Old Indo- 
Aryan hâve been considered but found tô be inappropriate. More than 
two-hundred-fifty inscriptions invçlving the use of thèse two signs bave 
been read and the meaning of the inscriptions is ascertained. Some 
significant words ocçurring in the Indus inscriptions where each sign bas 
a singîe soùnd value may be noted hère. 

Note: RV : Rgveda; Pane. Y,Br. zPanca Vfmsa Brâhmana; Ait. Br, : 
Aiîareya Brâhmana; lE : Indb-European. 

ama 'power' (RV) 
rk (arka) *siin , fire' (RV| - 
f/zff farAaj 'able or deservîng' 
al (aian) 'bestow upon' (RV) 
ara -pra ised V(ar *praise' RV) 
0/? *work* (RV) r : 

£7/r f/4rr/j *name of rsP (RV) 
aeka (eka) : *one' 

orna (omàsas) 'friend, helper' (RV) 
okka (okas) 'abode, home* (RV) : also *heaven' 
osa (osa) *shining' (RV) 

fdat (rdhat) *one whose speed îs increasing* (RV) 
rdh *increase, prosper' (RV) 
rk (rc) 'worship' (RV) 
kajka (from kan) 'praise' (RV) 
ksad 'di\iàQ' (RV) / . 

._. , . ^^/^?*go,sing'(RV) , 

gara 'name of the authorof a Siman^ (PaEc. V. Br.) 

gr 'sing, recite' (RV)- 

tâp ^heat* (RV) 

lapja *h.eatêd' 

îr(tri) nhree'(RV) . , 

traltrâ *savé, défend, prote>çt* (RV) 

trdalîrada 'saviour* 

îrltar 'save,swim across' (RV) 

rrA'crush'(RV) - . . :; , . , 

rfÂTû/rr^rÂrûf 'consisting of three' 

daldà'givo' (RV) , ,\ ^, 

dasa (Disa) *nanie of a person or tribe^ (n. of a person in 

RV) '^ ' ^ , . - 


dah Mestroy, hutn' (RV) 

éf (dru) 'îtspcct, piercc' (RVi; dadr, Intensive of dr., 

rfâ^'worshîp' (RV) 

dfh (druhu) 'to make strong or be firm* (RV) 
^f/i(DiUiiiyu) 'nameof a people* (RV) 

dhaksa(daksa)'sihh' (RV) 

nanâ 'concept of mother' (RV) 

;?a, /?a ppû *protect/protector' (RV) 

pahlpahhlpakhs *keep oath, protect' (Hittite) 

pakippakpkipaka *guardian* (eg. ajapakd) 

pûghlîong' (lE) 

patjppm *govern, raie govcrnof (sub. pma in Vcdic tcxtsj 

padalpëdû *foot* (RV) 

p^//wé*pfotect' (Hittite) 

pf *rescne, prosîote, protect* (RV) 

pai^/pjpa *pure, purification* (RV| 

j7^M/p0pf ^protected* (Intensive of/>f) 

par/pâff^ *siipreme* (RV) 



Mfa/M^^a*boontifuf, god, dispenser* (RV) 

m ^sbining* (RV) 

bhadra ^auspicions* (RV) 

mad 'delight* (RV) 

mana (Manu) *name of a person* (RV) 

iwûAa (magha) *great, exalted* (RV) 

makm (Maksu) *name of a person* (Ait; Br) 

rû/r| ^gnard* (RV) 

m-w/r^ma 'rcjoice, pleasant* (RV) 

vasa 'pôwer' (RV) 

Vf sa *n. of a man* (Pa5c V. Br.) 

Vnan 'vigorous, manly' (RV) 

sûkjsakaikkka *powerfnl* (R V) also ^namc of a person* 

Ma 'power, help* (RV) 

saia (satam) 'hnndred' (RV) 

iûdliada 'be eminenf ; triumph* (RV) 

samjsamiï 'calm, peaceful, auspicioosly* (RV) 

ig:?/i55 *rule, order, command* (RV) 

sûkra 'powerful* (RV) 

sû/f tt 'enenny* (RV) 

i^ra 'name of a son of Rcatkâ' (RV) 
i<î>wî?a (iivj) 'auspicioas* (RV) 
SûsajÉasa 'name of a person* (R V) 
sah *conqiier/conqueror' (RV) 
smr (saura) 'an oblation* (RV) 
sr 'to flow* (RV) 



happt (sapta) *seven* (RV) 

hara {from hr) 'be pleased' (RV) 

Examples of Inflexion in Indus Language . 





îrî (rîrat) 




Éada ^emineni* 




Vrsan *powerfuV 




The instrumental and dative case suffixes £f a.nd ae (e) are common 
to the Indus and Vedic languages. The genîtive and ablative suffix hjah 
of Indus was replaced by sjas in the Rgveda. 

Phonology : 

With the transformation of the early Indu& writing from a syllabic 
înto an alphabetic system the Indus language consisting of 24 sounds 
was represented by 43 signs and thrce minor variants It is înterestîng 
to find the présence of both voîced and unvoiced laryngeals in Indus 
language, a parallel for which caa be found in Hittite, Indo-Iranian and 
Semitic languages (Fîg, 7). In course of time one laryngeal was dropped 
in the Late Hara ppan time and one more in the Çgveda. In the absence 
ofseparate signs for /, u, and e in Indus script the signs for ^j> ând ae 
were used for the corresponding vowels. Indus language had not yet 
distinguished the féminine gender as was the case in another ïndo- 
European language, namely Hittite. 

Verble Forms : 

Vcry few verbal forms are found in Indus inscriptions as there 
was no need for them in seal-inscriptions containing oiily the name and 
titlc or désignation of the owncr, which could be expressed through 
nouns and adjectives. This docs not împly that verbal forms werc not 
developed. Someof the verbal forms occur ring in the Indus language 
are comparable tothose in the Old Indo-Aryan (Vedic) • 


ûf/> *obtain* 
fdh 'thrive' 
tap *heat* 
traltra *rescue' 
iap *curse' 
Aar *be gratified' 
s^ilsMs *rule* 




Past Particîple 


other forms 
fdhat {Suh) 


Sub : S ubjunctîvè; In j : Injunctivè) . 


From a critical stody of the indus seals in which linear sîgi 
a^one occur and which could be read with the^éeîp of Semitic signs tl 
Indus language is found îo be akin îo Old Indo-Aryaii in phonolog; 
semiotics,. vocabulary . and , .grammatical features. ■.-:Xt-:i.s, therefor- 
reasonabîe to infer thatthe language ofother inscription^ in which linc2 
sigïîs and pictiiresof bird, pîpal leaf, hiU, scorpion, fieî4, bee etc. ai 
used as syllables was also akin to Old Indo-Aryan/ Thèse pictures ar 
given syîlabîc values based on the words used in ûitRgveda for animât 
and inaaimate objects represented by the pictures, e g-', the syllabi 
value asf derived from ahmtha i s given to the 'pipai leaP sign and tb 
value ws from yrscaka{vrsdka) îs given'to the ^scorpipBV.sign afte, 
ttking info considération other alternatives./. , More than 75 inscriptioii' 
cootaining thèse tw^i pictures hâve been read satîsfactoriîy on the basii 
of the phonetîc values given on acrophonic principle. The same princî 
pie i> r>!;3wed in assîgnîog a syllabic value to pictures of 'hilT, 'field'; 
*bee*. 'birr, etc. (Fig. 9). As many as 1800 inscriptions out of 250C 
which are in a fairly good state of préservation hâve been read so far. 

The Words aeka (eka), îr (tri), happt (sapîa), dasa and sata used for 
the cardînals one, three, seven, ten and hundred and written intbe 

alphabeîic system of the Indus script prove that the Indus language 
beloogs to the Ïndo-European famiiy Hence the signs for cardinals 

1,2. 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 which are used in rébus System in the 
scal inscriptions are given the word value, eka^ dva (dvau)^ îr (trî)^ 
qMtf icaiur)^ pâma (pmca)^ sas, sapta^ asf, nav, daéa and dvadaia 

rcspciively. '■- ■ ■ ': 

Hierarchy ûf Ruîers : ,,...;.; • ■,.; . ,, 

The Indus scribe was careful enough to separatethe désignation 
from Ihc rest of the imcription which contaîned soroetimes the name o-f- 

the owncr. For exaraple, the inscription pa *èaA:i3' conveyes the-mean-v 
ing *protector' Baka*. Hère Baka seems to be name of a person (corn-; 
pare Baka Dilbhya in RV). A hierarchy of rulers seems to bave existcd 
la the Indus Empire as can be inferred from the foilowing-designations 

appcarîng în seal inscriptions. 
pajpïï *protector* 
pa-mahë *grcat protector' 
pû-pa 'protector (qf) protecîors' 
tfda 'saviour' (compare îradalîrata ïn Greek, tic.) : 
pat *gôveîeor* 

sâsafiësa) 'ruler* . ._, ' 

pm-pim 'governor (of) govcnor' ' /[ . '' ' 

. iSsa-iSsa ^ruler of rulers' (compare ràjaraja in Sa^nskrit).". .. 

mûimt îhc administrative position of the officiais, . .^ 


Nominal Compounds : 

In the formation of nominai compounds (samâsa) aiso, a few 
examples of which are given below, the Indus language seems to be the 
precursor of the Vedfc language. 

1. eA:û-asva/?ap *singular (unique) guardoftbe horse' 

2. eA:<3-r5 *singular bestower' 

3. tra-saka 'saviour powerful' 

4. paksa-opasa-da 'supporter of the wing (of the army ?)• 

5. pav'-saka-panta (pa£ca) sataha *pure and powerfiil of the five 

6. bha-vrsanha *of the brillant and manly (or husband)', 

So far as the syntax of Indus lanjsuage is concerned it is not 
possible to conclude whether the *subject-object-verb' order was foliowed. 
The fréquent use of unînflected roots as adjectives and nouns gare 
considérable freedom to the Harappan scribes to place words where they 
liked or where the words suited most, i.e. in the place available r»n the 
seal. For example; the word maha is used in différent places in the 
inscriptions (J) mahS-sada, (2) saia (sasaj-mohâ^ Q) mah& - sok - 
ira -maha. Accordîng to Prof. Greenberg the qualifying word (which 
Arno poebelcalls modifying élément) generally follows the subsîantive 
e.g. 'body bright' - in most languages, especiaîly Proto Indo-European. 
This agrées well with the word position in the Indus Language e.g. 
sïïsa mahë 'ruler great*. 

Contems of Seal-wscripîions : 

The seal-inscriptions mention the name or title of the owner who 
is învariably a ruler or protector or governer, but there are a few seals 
wherein no désignation is given suggestîng thereby they bcîong to private 
individuals. The use of the înjBiexional suffixes *to% *from* and *by' 
indicates that the seals bèlonged to a certain officiai or private person. 
The following examples are suggestive of ownership of seals. 

1. pata - bhagaha 'of Bhaga the governor' or 'of the bountiful 

2. pat-patae-baka-à *to governor (of) governer from Baka*. 

3. bakae-pa'io Baka (the) protector', 

4. Dahae-Baha *to Daha from Baha* 

5. Paratrr-papr 'to suprême saviour and protector*. Hère papr is 
an intensive of /?f **to protest"*. 

Among the names occurring in Indus seal inscriptions, Atr (Atri), 
Kasapp (Kasyapa), Gara, Trksa, Kesà, Mana. Rksa, Dasa, Baka, Sasa 
and éara are significant. They find mention in the Rgveda where they 


are elevated to the position of a sage or composer or prince. Drh and 
Pr occurring ii) Indus seals correspond to the naraes Druhyu and Purii 
mention d among the Pancajanas in the Rgveda. Vrsa/Vrsa is another 
name common to both Indus inscriptions and the J^gveda. The inscrip- 
tions reading ttha, catuska (qàtrka), pantaka^ etc. suggest confederacies 
of three, four, five, etc. The Rgveda too mentions confédérales of the 
famous 'five* (Pancajanah) and *ten' Sorae religious cérémonies such as 
asva-sattr (horse sacrifice) and efcSAa ^sacrifice lasting one day' are 
raentioned in the seals. Actual remains of altars used for animal sacri- 
fice andfire-worship found in Lothal and Kalibanga corroborate incscrip- 
tional évidence, 

Geograpiiical names appearing in Indus inscriptiofiS can aiso be 
identified, The ttim hapî-dvQppa hapiadvipû was applied to the région 
of *seven islands between rivers, perhaps the land between the Indus and 
its trîbutaries in Piînjab. The Sarasvatî valIey was called bbadrama'^ 
dvipa *most auspicious land' perhaps because it was a holy land. In the 
excavations at Kaiibangan impressive platforms built for fire-worship 
and sacrifi^ces havc corne to Hght. 

Gujarat was perhaps: known 2,% pant-dvipa (pancadvipa) because it 
was watered by five rivers Luni, Basas, Sabarmati, Mahi and Narmada. 
The Indus people seem to hâve distinguished 'pasture Jand* (gavva-gavya) 
from îhe ^mountain laod', the governor of which was called adr-(adn)- 
paiakâ (pm 'govcmof) 

Among the professions mentioned in seals, asvapaka^ 'groom' and 
mkqa *carpenter* are significant. Kapasa 'coUQn'nnàûkak 'carnelian' (?) 

or 'stone bead* also occur in the inscriptions. 

Basic Concepts ofée Indus and Rgvedk Peaple : 

The terms bhë, *shining' pay *piire% iaka 'powerful', bhadra 'ans- 
picious', etc. used with îhe ^Qtâ bhagâ (or pkûga) in Indus seals throw 
some lîght ontàe Harappan concept of God. God was considered 
powerful pure and auspicious. He protected ail and was merciful to 
men. The Vedic people too considered God as bountifui and merciful, 
Aîî sought his protection. The Indus people and Vedic Aryans concre- 
tized abstract qualities and used them as epithets or names of persons 
and gods e.g. MûgÂûf (bounteous), ma Daksa [ahk) , etc. The animais 
weredeifiedby the Indus people who carved animal motifs on their 
seals and inscribed epithets which convey îhe sensé of 'protector^ 
Mivine^ etc. The Rgvedic people too cquatcd gods to animais and 
comparée Indra and Agoi to Bull, horse. etc. 

The Harappan concept of moral and cosmic order was the same as 
those of Rgvedic people. Both used îhe term rta. 


In conclusion it can be said that the picture-cum-linear script of 
thc early Harappan times was gradually disciplinée into a linear alpha- 
betic writing and its language belongs to the Indo-European family. 
The seals were mostly nsed by rulers or their agents to authenticate 
goods or to certify that tax was coUected. The seal-inscriptions throw 
a flood of light on the économie, political and religions condition of the 




The plates bearingthe record in question are reported to hâve 
been found in the possession of a person residing at the village of Dhoi 
bahar in the Bilaspur district of Madhya Pradesh and stated to hâve 
been owned by a résident of Malga, P.O. Kotma, Shahdol district, 
Madhya Pradesh. The inscription bas been edited with facsimiles by 
D.G. SircarandS. Sankaranarayanan.i ': 

The charter is engraved on a setofthree copper-piates, ea^b 
raeasuring aboat 4" in breadthand 9|" ia length. The plates are held 
togetherby a ring, about 2.75 in diameter and about .25" in thickness. 
The holefor the passage of the ring is bored about the middle of the 
upper portion of each of the plates. The joints of the ring are soldered 
under a rectangular sealwhich bears a short prose legend giving the 
name of the issuing chief, preceded by the honorific irt, in îiominative 
singular. The first plate bears writing only on the inner side whjle the 
remaining two plates are engraved on boîh the sides. The inscription 
consists of thirty lines of writing wbich are distributed as follows : 
Scven lines each on the inscribed sides of the first and second plaies and 
theinaer sideofthe third plate while only a couple oflines-is on the 
outer side of the third plate. . 

The epigrapb is written in a variety of early Nâgarl chaiacters 
with hollow triangles (nail-heads) on top and on palaeographical 
grounds it has been placed in the first half ofthe seventh centùry a.d.^ 

1. Epigraphio Mica (El). XXXUI pp. 209-214 and plates facing pp.. ZiHni 213. 

2« D C. Sircar and S, Sankaranarayanan place it roughiy between the ]^o4h-Gaya 
inscription of Mahânâman, c. 580 a.d. [Corpus Jnscriptiomm hdkammiC* II) 
111, pp. 274-278 and pi. xiib], and ihe Aphsad stone inscriptionpf theEater 
Gupta king Âdityasena {îbîd., pp. 200-208 and pi. xxviii ) and thînkthkt Indra- 
râja may hâve originally owed allegiance to the Maukharis and'Tlilèd semi- 


The laBgîiage is Sanskrit, and the record is composed in a mixture of 
prose and verse. 

The epigraph refers itself ta the reigri of IndrarSja who îs styled 
sammta or a feudatory chief, though there is no allusion to the overlord 
whom he owed allegiance to. It purports to record his grant of a village 
in favour of a Brahmana and itîsdated the eleventh day of the fîrst 
fortnîght of the month of Jyestha in the régnai year denoted by a 
numerica! figure which can be read eîther as I or as ll,^ the weekday 
beîng Tuesday and the naksatra Uttarabhadrapada. The régnai year 
quoted is evîdently of IndrarSja himself.* As the date is not indicated in 
any well-known reckoning, it has been roughly assigued, on the basis of 
palaeograpliy alone, to the first half of the seveoth century a.d. As will 
be seen îb the seqtiel, thîs inference is supported by the internai 
évidence furnîshed by the inscription itself* 

The epigraph opens with the auspicious Vfovàt sîddham, expressed 
symbolically, and svmti which are followed by a couple of verses describ- 
ing, in a purely conventional manner, a ruling chief, probably named 
Ksitîpatis^ and bis son and successor, IndrarSja. Next follows a prose 
passage recording an order issued from Mandaka by the Sâmanta Indra- 
raja, styled as faramunmheèvara (a devout devotee of Mahesvara, i e^ 
Sîva) and as meditating upon the feet of his parents, to the ^^tct that he 
hâd donated the village of Salagramamantamaraka (or SâfagrâmSmanta- 
mtrki) iacluded wîthin Gulagrâtnaka^ situated in iheÂkâsa râstra which 
formed a part of the Chendaparanga-viçaya to the Brahmana Bhavas- 
vimîn, son of Nagasvâmin,^ who befonged to the Sandilya-gotra and 

iodepeadentiy for sorae tîme between the death of Maukhari Grahavarman and 
l!ie establîshmcat of Harsavardàana's power over the former Maukhari domi- 
oions. Thcy also eotertaîn the possibility of assigning the period of ïndrarija's 
mit to a date subséquent to Harsavardfaana's death in 647 a.d. We are of the 

opinion that the latter datîng îs too îate. 

3* Wc hâve a couple of slightly carved horizontal strokes one after the other 
which, X%\tn togetîier, appear. aecordmg to tfae décimal System of numéral 
Ii0latjoiî,t0sland for il. If, however, the second Strokelstaken as a mark of 
puûctîîition, which is not utilikely. the référence wlli be to the fîrst year of the 


4. Feudal chWs oftea datcd their records in the régnai yearsoftheiroverlords. 

^ IS SlT'' *f ?»y /PP''^^ «° be to a couple of hamlets called SâlagrSma 
«dMa^ta,naralca(or Amantamaraka) which formed part of the vill^IrGur 

min«. name-endmg éarmaa is. however. not attached to his 


was a student of the Vajasaoeya-Mâdhyandinasàkhâ of the Yajurveda. 
The royal order about the grant was addressed to the offîcers including 
the Grâmakûf a, ^ Droftagrika,^ Gandaka^^ Nayaka^^^ and DevavRrlka^^ 
and ail the chief persons and résidents of the village. The grant, which 
was made for the increase of the religious merit of the king*s parents 
and of hîs own self and was intended to endure as long as the moon, the 
sun, the earth and the stars last, is said to hâve carrled with it the right 
to the udrahga,^^ parikara^^ nîdhis^^ and upanîdhîs^^ ^né exemption 
from the entry of the caias and bhaias^^ and the cora-danda.^'^ The 

8, i,^., vilîage-headman. For some other epigraphical allusions to the office 
Gra makût a sec jy.C.SirczT, Indîan Epigraphical G lossary, pp. 120-1 2L 

9. Sircar and Sankaranarayanan observe that this ofiBclal désignation îs not met 
with in any other record and hint at thepossibility ofits being an errorfor 
Drahgîka, See EL XXXIlI, p* 212, note 6. But in reality it is a mistake for 
Dronâgraka referred to in the Bamha ni plates of îâïïrabala Udravaira* 
îbîd\ XXVII, p. 142, text-line 35. As indîcated by the recently discovered 
Mallar plates, the BamhanL grant actually belongs to Bharatabala's son and 
successor l^ïîrabalaand not to Bharatabala as believed so far. According to 
Kautily a (Artkaéâstra, lu 1.4), dronamukha dénotes the headquarters of a group 
of four hundred villages, Dronâgraka (or Dronâgrika as in the présent record) 
may, therefore, be taken to refer to the officer in dhB.tgeoî dronamukha ox 
dronâgra and may be compared to the Modem tahasildar. The Divyâvadâna 
(ed, Cowell and Neil, p. 620) mentions the terms dronamukha and dronamukhya 
D.C, Sircar {Indian Epigraphical Glassary. p. 101) takes it in the sensé of 'the 
kîng's graîn-share fixed per drona measure', 

10. This expression, according to Sircar and Sankaranarayanan, is not known 
from any other epigraph* But it is found mentloned in the aforementioned 
Bamhaoi plates of îlurabala. Chhabra thinks that in the présent context it pos- 
sibly means *a warrior' {Eh XXVII p. 139)» But as gandaka also means coin, 
it may possibly refer to an officer connected with coinîng or minting activity* 

10 a. This office is found mentîoned in the Arthaàâstra (1, 12, 6J and the .^wA:ra- 
riîtisâra (i, 192) and is taken by V.V.lLzn^{Htstùry cf Dharmaêastra, IIÏ, 
p. 990) in the sensé of the 'head of ten villages'. Chhabra takes it to mean *a 
leader* or 'amilitary commander' (EL XXVII p. 139) and U.C. Sircar, in the 
présent context, *a royal officer or a ruling chief {Indian Epigraphical Glo- 
ssary, p* 214). 

11. This expression probably dénotes the *superintendent of a temple* comparable 
to the modem Panda. See Sircar, /n^ra/i Epigraphical Glossary^ S.V. devavâ^ 
rika and vârika. According to Chhabra (El. XXVIÏ. p* 139), it means 'a supe- 
rintendent of temples and holy places*» 

12. Udranga mt2Ln% probably 'fixed or principal tax on permanent tenants*. 

13. Hère />ar/^ara isperhaps an ettot fox uparîkara^ 'additional or minor tax' or 
*tax paid by temporary tenants'. 

14. This term dénotes 'a treasure' or *major dcposit% 

15. Upanidhi^B. minor deposit% 

16. Thèse two terms dénote respectively the regular and irreguîar soldiers. 

17. Probably this expression means 'fines imposed on thieves*. [The expression in 
the original reads cora-^danda^yafgàiUtah which may be the samè as cùrû-danda- 
varjam (ue.-'Varjjitah) of other records, denoting the donee in question was 
not cntitled to the amount of fine put by the state on the thieves in the gîft 
village. Ed.] 


villagers and officers were ordered to be obedient to the doneô and oflfer 
him ïhoga^^ suitably. The fiiture rulers of the family aie then exhortée 
to maintain and endorse the grantaed thoseobstructiog it are threatened 
with the ive great sins. As many as seven benedictive and imprecatory 
stanzas are cited ia support of this exhortation. The charter was written 
by the Mjapuîra^^ Deva and incised by one Dronaka, son of thegold- 
sîûith ïsvara, The inscription ends with the spécification of the détails 
of -the date which we have^ examîned aboyé* 

As for the locaiities specîfied in the record, the place of issue, 
Mandaka was probably the capital of Indraraja. This seems to find 
support from the absence of any word W^cvësaka or skandhavara suf^xod 

to ihe name whîch is generally the case when a grant îs is&ued from a 
place orher than the capital, It has not been identified, though the 
possibllity of ihe name Malga being a,-modij5ed form of-the -ancient 
Maadaka cannot be altogether rnled; ont.' , , The' narae bf ■ the; granted 
village, Sâlagrimimaotamarka or Salagramaraantamaraka, &eems„to con- 
sist of the names of two locaîitîesj i.e., Sâlagrâma and Amanta.niaraka 
or Maatanaaraka, which, ; constit.iiting' a single unit, were apparentjy 
included in the larger village Giila-grâmaka.20 Thèse '.as'the 
siib-divîsion called Âkasa and the localîtv Chendaparanga, after which 
the Tisajû or district was christened, cannot be ideotified. 

The inscription supplies absolutely no information about the 

family tj which Indrarâja beloaged and this problem has îherefore 
baffled historiaos. However, the internai évidence afforded by the 
record, if properly analysed, may provide a due to solve this rîddle; 
Tbere is a considérable similarity between the présent record on the one 
haod and the Bamhaoi plates of Bharatabala^î and Mallar plates of 
Siïrabaîa-- Udîrnavaira, (the Pandavavamsin rulers of Mekalâ) on the 
olher Tbus, ail die three charters are written in nail-headed charac- 
îers ihc aiii-heada or triangular tops being hollow, and are composed 
m a mixlore of prose and verse. The hole for the passage of the ring on 
the plates of aîi Ifae three sets is bored about the middle at the top.23 
Ail the three eh irters commence with the same auspicious formula 
{suMham symbal und ^c word svasii) foîiowed by a stanza bcginning 
wîih the verbal î\irm asîi. The graat portions of the three records are 

18. Tîiis miy m»zan *periodicaI offerÎBgs'. 

Î9. This is a tstie of nobiliiy, the original of tîie modem RaJpuU 
20. ïi i> m liîtie stringe iMt u settlement comprising two hamlets and large enough 
la be C4îled a viîîagc f ,^ra«a/ is sdd to hâve formed part of another ^llme 

^3; Tfth ftatere mumlctû in the capper-plates "grants of the Parivrâjaica MaMr^i.. 
aîso -ma may therefore ht regarded as a régional characterTstlc? ^^^^'^^^^ 


also composée in an almost identîcal style and in many cases the sarae 
expressions are met with.^^ The addresses of the royal command in 
respect of the grant in ail the three epigraphs are also practically 
îdentical^s Iq the Bamhani plates, for instance, we find mention of the 
Grumakûia, Dronâgraka, Nsyaka, Devavarika and Gandaka s^nd the Mallar 
plates mention the oflScers headed by thç> GrSmakûîë and the Nayaka in a 
gênerai manncr. It will be seen from the account of the contents of the 
Malga plates givcn above that they name exactly the sameofficersas 
those referred t© in the Bamhani plates, though there are minor diJBTe- 
rences in spsUings and the order of their mention, in the two records, 
The sarae is true regarding the privilèges and exemptions conferred on 

24. In the Bamhani plates we hâve ^W^ ^CH^ qTs§Frçfîi%^ ^t|îîFî% m^^- 
[I*] î^%îT^3 W^ [m] m^ ^m(^:) ^(€r)^(w): 'èWft^: ^=^TÎ- 

The wording of the Mallar plates is as follows : 

3n(3t)=qT5*T35i%îit(srîi:) ^r%fsr(fHr:) ^îq^fèr: =^i;5ei§nfêiïï: =qg:?rïfliï<T^^: 
sïï^^sïïéf^rfMT'j^pRtéîr ïrRnfir5[T(éXT^R^ gw^rf^is^. ..... sricrïïi^^nnT'ï 

(afêtni^ ^^m^) ^ f ii<:\ ii HAMm ïffNî^^ [ ) *] ^ïWT^imT [ i *] ^ 
=^refr5;«tr(5t) ?rg<T (cq) gj^ u5rH#i?#!f 4Ri<^4l<^4)-iii:iîq i (<tt) ¥%it =f [ i *] 

The Maîga plates oflndiaraja contain the following: 

25. There is close simiîarity observable even in regard to the wording. 


the grantees of the t h ree charters. Thus ail the three grants mention 

rîght to the udranga, uparikara^ nidhîs and upanidhis and exemption from 

the entry of the chàias and bhaias and from the chora-daffd^' And what 

i^ raost iiiteresting, the privilèges aod remissions arespecified exactly in 

the same order ia three grants. Close similarityis also noticed in the 

exhortation to the future mlers. In ail the three inscriptions the 

exhortation is addressed to the future kîngs belonging to the issuing 

chiers famîly and the violators of the grants are cursed with the five 

great sins in almost the same words.^sA The manner of recordingthe 

date in thèse records is also the same. Thus, in ail the three epigraphs 

we find spécification of the year, month, fortnîght and #îa/:ça/m. The 

présent grant and the Maltar pktes refer to weekday also. Ail the three 

records specificallyrefer lo their eompletion.^^» The administrative 

System as gleaned from the three records îs also the same. AU the three 

mention msira as the largest administrative unit wbich was, according to 

the Bamhani and Malga plates,^^ sub--di¥îded into visayas. The village 

was, of course, the smallest unit. The seals of thèse records are also 

similar in that their îegeîidcoesistsof a single word,^' And aboyé ail, 

what îs most înteresting is this: Both Mihîraka,^» thé engraver of 

the Bamhanî and Maîlar plates, and Dronaka, the engraver of the 

présent charter, are described as sons of the goldsmith îsvara. And 

lastly, the area over which fndrarijaappears to hâve ruled, viz^^ Shahdol 

district of Madhya Pradesh, is not far removed from the région ruled 

over by the Plçdavavamsias of Mekali. In view of thèse considérations 

ît may not be ilIo|ical to suggest that Indrarija of the Malga plates was 

connected with SSrabala's famîly, although the exact nature of this 

reîationshîp cannot be ascertaîned in the présent state of insufficient 

information. The close simîîarity amouoting to near identîty in regard 

to formai mattcrs between the Pandavavamsin records on the one hand 

aiïd Indrarâja's only known epîgraph on the other should leave no room 

for doubt that SSrabaia Udîrnavaîra and Indrarâja were chronologically 

close to each other. And sînce Indrarija used the title sïïmanta, it may 

be reasonably concludcd that he owed allegiance to the Pandavavamsins 

of Mckaîa» But sînce Indrarija did not find it necessary to refer to his 

overîord evcn omt and sincc the engraver of his record was a brother of 

2SÂ Wfcik the îiuœber of imprecatory verses m îhe Malga plates is largcr than that 

15B. SmmSptmeeéam imanam. 
Mm Hie Malîar plates do not namc tfae vîsaya. 

27. The ml «tecèed to the Baœfaaaî plates does mt bear any device or leaend 

28. In the M«I!ar plates his is crroticoasly speit as Mahiraka. 


the scribe responsifale for inscribing the known records of Bharalabala 
and Surabala, it appears almost certain that he flounshed in a period of 
political confusion following the termination of the reign of Surabala 
when he was not yet in a position to renounce the sovereignty of his 
Panda va vamsin overlord but at the same time was strong enouj.h not to 
feel the necessity of mentioning him by name. 

The above conclusion finds support from anoiher considération 
also. As stated above, on palaeographical grounds the Maiga plate» 
hâve been placed in the first half of the sevenih ceniury a.d. This is 
aho the date for Siîrabala suggested by an important synchronism. We 
learn from the Mallar plates of Surabala that his father Bharatabala 
hadforhis consort a princess of the Amarâja family born in Kosalâ, 
z.e., Chhattisgarh région. The Amaraja family, from which Bharata- 
bala's queen hailed, is evidently identical with the Amarâr>a-kula to 
which Jaya-bhattâraka and his sons Pravara-bhattaraka and Vyâghraraja 
known from the last named prince's Mallar plates^^ belonged. Vyâghra- 
fâja, who issued this charter, is generally regarded as belonging to the 
Sarabhapuriya family and is piaced in the concluding phase of the 
history of the family which cannot be dated much earlier ihan the close 
of the sixth century A.D. We are of the view that the Amarârya-kula 
was différent from the Sarabhapurlyas and that the Amararya-kula 
prince Pravara-bhattaraka occupied the Mallar région taking advantage 
of the décline of the Sarabhapuriya power about the beginningof the 
seventh century a.d. It will thus follow that Bharatabala's son Surabala 
flourished in the first half of the seventh century a.d?^ 

29. EU XXXIV, pp. 45-50. 

30. For a fuU discussion of the chranology of the ^arabh^puriyai, see my p^t^e; 
in Fràchya-PratibhS, V, pp. 1-40» 



This inscription engraved on a slab now kept in tbe oj0&ce of the 
Director of Archives, Panaji, Goa, was found at Kunkali, Shashthi 
Taluk. It was copied by Shri K.G, Krishnan, SuperintendiDg Epigra- 
phist (now Chîef Epigraphist) of the oflOice of the Chief Epigraphist 
(Mysore), Archaeological Survey of India, in the course of his coltection 
tour and it bas bcen noticed in iht Annual Report on Indîan Epigraphy frr 
/972-7i (Appsndix B.No. 7). Now this is being edîted hère with the 
kind permission of the Ghief Epigraphist, 

The record consists of 12 Unes of wrîting which is in a well pre- 
served state. The characters are Nâgari of the sixteenth century. As 
regards palaeography, only siro-matrâs hâve been used to indicate medial 
e and o. Ba is written like gha (lînes 5 and 9). Ra îs written peculiarly. 
It ooasists of a vertical lîne with a small horizontal line projectîng to its 
left side. Sometimes the small line projects from the middle part of 
the vertical Une and takes curve upwards (line 2 and 3). In the other 
formof this letter the small stroke begins from the point where the ver- 
tical line meets with the serif and runs down forming an acute angle- 
with the former (Unes 3 and 9) The conjunct letter rya is met with 
twice (lines 8 and II). In both the cases it is formed by jointing a small 
horizontal stroke to the left curve of the letter j^a. The language is a 
local variety of Marathi and the localism îs reflected in words like 
savachara (line 2), îlmga (line 3) thapana (line 4) etc. 

The record is dated in Saka 1501, Pramathin, Vaisakha su. 10, 
Budhavâra. Thèse détails regularly correspond to the 6th May, a.d. 
1579/ ., . 

The purport of the record (lin ?s 1-6) îs to register the installation 
oîdiUhga by VIthôjï who was a son(?) of Megoji, and v^^as a résident of 
Vimlaka. The llhga is called Râmcsya]caliriiga. It is^n^pt known from 


the inscription wbether the linga v^as installée in a temple. Further tbe 
inscription contains no référence to the village Kunkali, the j5nd--spot 
of the présent record. Hence it is difBcuIt to say if tbe inscribed slab in 
question originally belonged to that place, 

The last 6 Unes contaîn ai| imprécation. ït is not possiplc to 
ascertain the exact meaning of the imprccatory portion on accountof 
the faulîy construction. However, référence to Musalamans is quite 
interestîng. Rarcly wc get such références in Hindu records. 

That the îrnprecatory portion enjoins apon boththe Hindu and 
Muslims to protect the /i%û[ is quite clear from the context. The ex- 
pftssion moâûîëkûHsa most probably coeans *he wbo htQàkn {the linga).' 
The sîn resulting fron) slaying of cows {gohîfksë) and killing of Brahma- 
aas {brahmahatya) would befall a Hindu destroying the Unga. Bat on 
protectîng ît he would earn he merit of a pîlgrimage to Kasî (J^T^t-- 
yEîrë). whereas the Musiims respecting the Hèga would earn the merît 
of a pUgrimage to Makki (Musaîammësi MûkegûUysci phaîa). 

Tbus we hâve a rare instance of a référence to the Musiims in a 
Hindu record in this inscription Tfais înjunciion to the Musiims clearly 
indîcates the prevalenee of popular appréhension of Hindu idols beîng 
destroyed at the faands of the icoooclastic Musiims at the time and place 

to which the présent record belongs. 

The Idilshihî rule inGoa ended by ÂaD.J510;i 'But it seems a 
largenumberof: Musiims contisued to liveîn Goaeven.after „its con- 
quest by the Portugese* So far four Arabie and Persian inscriptions 
from Goa, ail of Ihem belonging to a period subséquent to a.d. 1510,2 
and faîling atound the period under review, hâve come toiight Further, 
oneofîhem dated in A.H. 978 (a.d. 1570-71)3 issues a royal orderof 
*Ali I of the àdilshâhî dynasty, prohibiting the evil practice.of fiipf//f/.ita 
prévalent in ihe muëmah Guwà (Goa), by which the property of a per^ 
s.on.whoîeftbchind himdaughters, sisters, brothers, etc., but no son, 
was coiî the State' Wïth the re&uli that the above mentioned re- 
lations were .put to great hardship. This inscription, ,.at the end en joins 
iipoatheiaeîi of Kokan (i.e.Konkan) région to refrain from accusing 
one anotbcr. Since the population of Goa during the period of this 
inscription chîeiy coosisted of the Hindus and Musiims, and since the 
roymi o rderis addr essed to entire -populace of Koèkan région, the cir< 

^* f-f ^r?^'*^^!^^'^'*^/ ^^^^^ ^*^P^^^ Voi. Vî, pages 424-25. (The l^es 

t^l^ ,f''^'T """"^Z ''^^^ '^^'^^^ ^ ^^^"^^«^^ ^^ ^ Musalmân described 

as sthmaka ^m officer m charge of the administration of the place') 

3* mi, î%3-€4, AppfBdîx D,No. 61. 


cumstances under which this injunction was laid upon can w^^^^ 
clained as mutual intolérance between the Hindus and Muslms. Thus, 
Settnctrnto theHindus and Muslims in the record under review 

?rS=ivÏaHiga hadthe concurrence of .he royal au.h.„.y though 

tbe name of the Icing is not mentioned. 


5. ^^îr^M ôsîïï........^ 

6. gt sîmr %â5t l^iïïîi^ 

8. wf (I) ^ è^ ^ 'T^^ 

10. ï=pô5flT^ ïï%ïïô5tqi% 

11. Tss ïFR^ tr^ ^5T# 

12. îlM ''^'^ [11] 




InearlyGreek and Latin works an east Indian people is men- 
tionedbythe name 'Gangarid', which is derivedfromthenamcofthe 
river calIedGanges (i.e. Gangâ) and means 'tbc Gangetic tribe'. Its 
Greek plural form is Gmgarîdai{Lztm Gangaridae) îo th2it it is not pos- 
sible^to think, on itsbasis, ofany Indian namelike GângI-hrdaya,Gan- 
gâ-râdha or GangE-rastra. i Gangaridai was sometimes also written 
wrongly as Ganiaridal 

In thefirst century a.d. Pliny [c. ad. 23-79) says that the final 
part of the course of the Ganges runs 'through the country of the Gan- 
garides'. The Feriplus maris Erythraeî ick.n.n) applies thename 
Ganges to the land on the lower course ofthe river and also mentions 
themart called Gange standing on the Ganges. But in the following cen- 
tury, Ptolemy's (7W^rû/7A)'(c, a.d. 145) mentions the fîve mouths ofthe 
Ganges and says that ail the country about the said mouths was occupied 
by the Gangaridai who had their royal résidence at the city of Gange.^ 
Thus the Gangaridai are located in the deltaic région of lower Bengal 
watercd by the mouths of the Ganges. 

Unfortunately, early Indian literature does not apply a name likc 
Gangi or Gânggya, i.e. Gangetic, to any peopleof deltaic Bengal so that 
the Gangaridai, so well-known to the Classical European writers, must 
hâve been known to the Indians by some other name. Curiously enough, 
Kâlidâsa, who fiourished at the court of the Impérial Guptas in the 

1. See Sircar in Proceedings of the Indian History Congms, Bombay, 1947, pp. 
9lff.j indStudiesin Ihe Gtography of Ancient and Medievallndia, 2nd édition, 
1971, pp. 2l3ff. To tbe références cited may be addcd, Virgili GeorgUs, III, 
27, and Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica, VI. 67» See also below. 

2. R,C. Majumdar, The Classical Accounts oflndia, pp,308, 341, 369, 375. 


fôlirth-fiftiï century A.D,, locates the Vanga people in the land watered 
by îhe mouths ofthe Ganga BhSgîrathî. Thus in the description of 
Ragha's dignjaya in Eastern India in canto IV ofthe Raghuvamka, 
Raghîj is saîd to bave sobdued the Suhmas (i.e. the people ofRadha in 
the région around the Ajay valIey), next defeated the Vangas fighting 
froïîi boats and planted pillars of victory in their land watered by the 
moythsof the Gamgâ, and then crossed the Kapisâ (i.e. the Kashai or 
Kan^ai riinning through the Midnapur District) in order to reach the 
couîitry of the Utkalas on fais way to Kalinga under the lord of Mt. 
Mahendra. The locition of the Gangaridai by the Classical writers 
and ofthe Vaâgas by the ladian author, both belongingto theearjycen- 
lîiriesofthe Christian era, in exactly the deltaic part oflower Bengal 
stroïigly suggests that Vanga was the Indian name ofthe people whom 
îhe eirly Eiiropeaas called Gangaridai or Gangaridae (i.e. Gangetic after 
the Gatiges wfaich was sometimes aiso nsed as the name ofthe land. It 
îs no doubt tempting to suggest that this was due to the foreigners' con- 
fusion ofthetwo simîlarly soiinding names Vanga (or Vcmgah) and 
Gaiîgi. ■ ■ ■ 

Waether the Greeks confused Gangâ with Vangsh or not, there is 
littledoubtthat theyderived the name Gangarîd (singular Gangarides 
piurai Gangaridai) from Gaêgà though the augmentation ofris not 
eastlv expiai nable. 

In the latter half of the fourth century se, the invading forces of 
Atexander the Great were reluctant to cross the Béas in the Eastern Pun- 
jab because of the report that the king ruling over the vast territory to- 
wards the east was ready to fight them with a huge army. This Indian 

M^irr^f ^ ^'^°"^'^'° theNanda dynasty, and his dynastie name 
Nandahasbeen corrupted to Xan drames or Agrammes by the early 
fîTinT-n .^ ■' *°f«*'»«"«P^e^«nted as the king of the Prasioi 
(UtmPra«i)havmg the capital at Palibothra. i.e. Pâtaliputra located 
a modem Patna, Prasioi is no doubt the Greek modifica ion of pScva 
or the people ofthe Eastern Division of India. the western boundarv 
Cilb Ib y^arrZ ^?rp'^ Bràhmanical writ'ers as the K^lak t^^^^^ 
iœt the sJd tf '^^' ^'"^^^^ (AHahabad) and Vârànasï. Some, 

m ff tfe llu '' :''''''°.*'^'' *^^ ^^^"^ °f *^^ Gangaridai and some 
tr^at oL o Ther^ 7^' 1^^« Gangaridai and the Prasioi of the 
ïwo naîions oî the Gangaridae and the Prasioi. 

»~on«l,,whraAlMard«rnkr^. V °"<'»"''ai (Gangaridai)', 
the Indus ■ Fim ca^. . r ""f'?'" '^ iMcriptio. of thecountrybeycnd 

tae mer called the Ganges which had a width of 

1978-1979] GANGARIDAI 33 

thirty-two stadia, and a gréa ter depth than any other Indian river; be- 
yond this again 'were situated the dominions ofthe nation called the 
Prasioi (Prasii) and the Gangaridai, whose king, Xandrames, had an 
armyof 20,000 horses, 200,000 infantry. 2,000 chariots and 4,000 élé- 
phants trained and equipped for war'; thirdly, when Alexander îearnt 
from Porus tfiât ^the king of thû Gandaridai (Gangaridai) was a man of 
quite worthless character, and held in no respect, as he was thought to be 
the son of a barber'; fourthlv, in connection with Alexander's con- 
scîousness about 'the difficulties which wauld attend an expédition 
against the Gandaridai (Gangaridai)'; and in connection with Alexan- 
der's atterapt 'to animate his troops for the expédition against the 
Gandaridai (Gangaridai)', ^ 

The second of the passages qaoted above shows that 'the nation' 
called the Prasioi and the Gangaridai lived to the east ofthe upper 
course of the Ganges and not to the lower course of the river as is 
sometimes understood by scholars. This is because the référence hère 
is to the psople of tiie Nandi empire exrendingin the wesî probably 
even as far as the Béas beyond the Ganges and the Yamuna» The same 
passage a Iso occurs in the work of Curtius Rufus Quintus (middieof 
the Ist century a.d.) as follows : **Beyond the river (Indus) lay exten- 
sive déserts which it would take eleven days to traverse. Next came the 
Ganges, the largest river in ail India, the further bank of which was 
înhabited by two nations, the Gangaridae and the Prasii, whose king 
Agrammes kepî in the field, for guarding the approaches to his country, 
20,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry besides 2,000 four-horsed chariots, 
and what was the most formidable force of ail was a troop of éléphants 
which, he said, ran up to the number 3,000/*'* The différence between 
the two authors are apparently due to clérical errors (also noticed in 
other cases) and are no doubt negligible. 

In the above passages, the Nanda king is represented as the lord 
of both the Prasioi and the Gangaridai orof the Gangaridai alcSne. 
There was a iittle confusion whether the people ruled by the king 
formed a single nation or were two peoples representing two wings of the 
saine kingdom; but sioce the two names are sometimes mentioned together, 
some distinction between the two was meant. However, Pracya being the 
gênerai name ofthe people of Eastern India, the mention of one of the 
Bast Indian tribes separately along with it attaches spécial significance 
to the Gangaridai. This peculiar importance of the Gangaridai or 
Vanga people of Lower Bengal about 327-324 bx. may probably be 
explained by suggesting that the Nanda dynasty bclonged to that clan. 

3. /l^iÀ, pp.. 170, 172, 173, 234, 
109 — 5 


Strabo's work (about tlie beginning of the Ist century a.d.) 
suggesÈs thaï Candragupta and his predecessors were called Palibothri 
(i.e Pataliputraka) from the nameof their capital which was situated 
in £he !and of the Prasioi ^ Pliny also apparently refers to îhc Maiirya 
king Candragupta when he says, "But the Prasii surpass in power and 
glory every other people, mt only in this qnartcr, but one may say in ail 
India. their capital being Palibothra, a very large aod wealîhy city, after 
whichsimecall the people itself the Palibothri, -nay, even the whole 
tract alOQg the Ganges. Their king bas in his paya standing army of 
600,000 foot-soîdiers, 30,000 cavalry;and 9,000 éléphants; whence may 
be formed some conjecture as to the vastness of his resonrces."^ We 
koow from Plutarch's work (c. a.d. 100) tfaat it was Candragupta whose 
armyconsisted of 600,000 men, Thas he says, **For the kings of the 
Gangaritai (Gangaridai) and îhe Praisiai (Prasii) were reported to be 
waitingfbrhim with an army of SO.OOO horse, 200,000 fbot; 8 000 war« 
chariots and 6,000 fighting éléphants. Nor was this any exaggeration, 
for ûot long afterwards, Androcottus (Candragupta) who had by that 
time moumed the throne, présentée Seleucns wiih 500 éléphants aod 
overran and sobdued the whole of India with an armyof 600,000 ni en J'^ 
The 'kings' of the two peoples, if not an error, appear tohave beea the 
Naada king and his feudatories. 

ît is interesting to note that Candragupta îs associated with the 
Prasioi (and never with the Gangaridai) and the city ofPalibothra and 
he is sometimes called king or the greatest king of India or the king of the 
Indians,^ It may be mentioned io this consection that, to the Greeks, 
India was originally the land in the valley of the river Indus. Thus 
Herodotiis (fifth ccEtnry BX.) says, 'Indeed of al! the inhabitants of 
Asia of whom we haTe any reliable information, the lodians are the 
most easîerly-beyond ihem the country is iininbabitable désert".^ 
This is the déserts of Siad and Rajasthan which people crossed in eleven 
or twelve days acçording to later writers as, we hâve seen. As a matter 
of fact, the Greeks borrowed the eames of the river and the land from 
the Persians who applied to both the name Hiadu which is the saroe as 
Indian Sindhii. The useof the name India to indicate the sub-continent, 
more or less, in the worksof îhe Greeks became graduallypopular fiom 
about the closiog years of the foortb century b.c. 

Itseems that the Gangaridai or Vaiga people offered their sub- 
missioa to the Mauryas and remained the subjects of the Magadha 

,5.' ibid*^ p*262. / 
6. ibidn p,242. 

' 1*: , md.,p.m^ ■ ' ' ' ■ ■ ■ 

s. ihid., 

9. md., p. î. 

1978-1979] GANGARIDAI 35 

empire tili the days of the earîy Suigas. They appear to baye become 
ruiers of ao îndependent kingdom theieafter. In the second century 
A.D Ptolemy mentions Palibothra (Pàtalipîitra), the old capital of the 
Magadha empire, as the capital of a kingdom that was différent frona 
the kingdom of the Gangarîdai whose capital was Gange, a name that 
reminds os of Gangâsâgara.^^ Gains Julius Solinus (Ist half of the 3rd 
century a.d.) mentions the two kingdoms separately as follows : 
(l) "The people who live in the further-off part (of the Ganges) are the 
Gangarides, whose king possesses 1,000 horse, 700 éléphants, and 60,000 
foot in apparatus of war," and (2) *' Fhe Prasian nation, which is 
extremely powerful, inhabits a city called Palibotra, whence some call 
the nation itself the Paîibotri. Their king keeps in his pay at ail times 
60,000 foot, 30,000 horses and 8,000 éléphants. »! In îhe jSrst and second 
centuries a.d., the peoples of Eastern India may hâve sobmitted to the 
Knsânas. Probably the Murui^das (a Scythian clan) were ruling at 
Pàtahputra in the second and third centuries A.D. , first as viceroys of 
the Kusânas and then as serai-independent and îndependent ruîersj^ 

H.C Raychaudhuri thinks that Diodorus understood îhe land of 
the Gangandai to hâve two différent iraplications : first^anarrow 
sôn;?e meaoing a territory io the deltaic région of Southern Bengai in 
the eastern fnnge of India and secondly, a widcr sensé meaning the 
whole land lying between the part of *India which Alexander conquered* 
and Further India, i.e., Ptoiemy"s India beyond the Ganges. Of course 
the dominions of the Nanda king, sometimes called the lord of the 
Gangaridai, couid hâve been meotioned as the land of the said people 
even if they were actualiy inhabitaots of a smaller territoiy within the 
Nanda empire. Raychaudhuri, however, says as follows with référence 
to Diodorus, ''The référence to the possession of 4,000 elephents by the 
king of the Prasioi and the Gangaridai in Book XVII and by the Gan- 
garidae in Book II, Ch 17, suggests that the Gangandai of Book II are 
not the Gangaridai proper of the lower Ganges valley, but the united 
nation of the Prasioi and the Gangaridai in Book XVII. The extended 
meaning given to the name Gandaridai (Gangaridai) by Diodorus may 
hâve been due in part to the présence io upper India of a city called 
Gange whose existence is vouched for by Artemidorus and Strabo. This 
city must be carefuUy distioguished from Gange, the royal résidence 
of the Gangaridaementioned by Ptolemy and apparently by the author 
of the Periplus^'A^ We find it dtfHcult to agrée entirely with this 
interprétation of the évidence at our disposai. Of course, Artemidorus 
is quoted by Strabo as saying that the river Ganges *flows down trom the 

10. ibid.,p.375, 

n. ibid, pp. 457-^58, 

12. SeeSircar, 5<?/w^ Probîems of KusUna and Rdjput Bistory. pp. 55 ff. 

13. Hîst Beng^, éd. R.C» Majumdat. pp. 42"43/ 


Eoioda (Himavat) mouataintowards the south, and that, when it arrives 
at the city Gange, it turns towards tbe east to Paliboîhra (Pâtaliputia) 
and its outlet into îhe sea'^^. However, no sucb city of Gsàga lyicg to 
the west of Patna is known from any other account either Indian or 
foreigti and wù are iaclinsd to attribute the statemt;nt to confusion since 
it is asîgnificint fact tbat, in the same context, Strabo discloses the 
doabtfal nature of the tradition when he says, **Ând he (Artemidorus) 
goes on to mention certain other things, but in such a confused and 
careless manaer that tliey are not to ba considered" ^^ 

Raychaiidhiiri draws our attention fo the foliowîng passage from 

DiadoFiis (lî 37) : 'This river (Ganges), which is 30 stades in width, 

flo^vs from lorth to south and emptses into the océan forming ihe boun- 

dary towards the east of the tnbe of th^ Gmgaridae (Gangaridai) who 

possesses tne iargsst number of éléphants ...4,000 éléphants ecquipped 

for war*\ and suggests that hère référence has been made to the easte- 

rnmostofthe five branches of the Ganges that separated India from 

Further India. Thîs vis^ is bised on aaother statementof Diodorus 

(XVItL 6) : '*Iidii ÎMonibited by very raany nations among which 

the greatest of ail is that of the Qandaridai (Gingaridai), against whom 

Âlexinier did aot unlertake an expédition being deterred by the 

multitude of thair elep'iints. This région is separated from Further 

India by ti^ greitest nver in those parts, for it has a breadth of30 

stidia, but it adjoins the rest of India which Alexander has conquered'*.^^ 

Raychaudhuri identifies the 'greatest river in thèse parts' with the 

casternmost mouth of the Ganges because ïts width is aiso given as 30 

stade-». It seems to us, however. that the same width of the eastern and 

western mouth^ of the Gaages is rather dubious and that the great river 

separaîing ïndii and Farcher [nJia ouldbethe Brahmaputra which 

m^y. of course, hâve b*in jained with the easîernmost mouth ofthe 


Thore isabelicf among certain uncritica! Bengali writers, who 

are prone lo sihibit régional chauvioism, îfaat Virgil, io his Georgics pays 

' tribuia ti the great valour of îhe ancestors of the Bengalis,, Thus we are 

tôld, '*The ■valopr of the peopîe of Beogaî was ■ known , ail over the 

ancient world. .„,,.. Thî great Roman poet Virgil aîso tells us in his 

' Gmrgics that he woîîld record in *solîd gold and.ivory' the valour' of 

■.the peopîe ofL^werB^fîgaî^J^ Of course âfter the report about the 

;, Î4.. ^ R.C. ■Majuœ, Ciass. Ac. înd., p. 2SL 
^ Î5* ibié^, p*2S2. 
16. Eist, Seng., op. cit., p* 4L 

II. Â*K. Sur, Misiêff md Culture of Beugaï, Calcutta, 1963, and 1912, p. 16. 
The stiïîc.tMiîg Is.repeiteci m the tuthor *s Bymmies efSj^mkesis m Hîndu 
Cttltife, Caîciîtîa, I9B, p. 36. 


Emoda (Himavat) mouEtaiQ towards the south; and that, when it arrives 
at the city Gange, it turns towards the easi to Paliboîhra (Pâtaliputra) 
and îts outlet into the sea'^"^* However, no such city of Ganga lying to 
the west of Patna îs known from any other acoount either Indîan or 
foreigti and wù are iacîiîied to attribute the statemcnt to confusion since 
ît i^ a sigmificiot fact that, in the same context, Strabo discloses the 
doubtful nature of the tradition when he says, **And he (Artemidorus) 
goes on ta fBentîon certain other things, but in such a confused and 
careless manner that they are not to ba considered" .^^ 

Raychaudhuri draws our attention îo the folîowing passage from 
Diodorus (1137): '*This river (Ganges), which is 30 stades in widtb, 

flo#s froni 'larih to south and empt^e^, into, the océan forming-^the boun- 
dary towards the east of the tiibs of ths Giog'aridae (Gangaridai) who 
poâsesses IhQ largest number of elepha.nts ...4,000 éléphants. ecquipped 

for war'% aad soggests that hère refcreoce bas bee.n made to the .eastc- 
rn.030st of the fiva branches of the Ganges that separated'lndia- from 
Further India. This vis^ is based on another statementof Diodorus 
(XVHL 6) : **f idii î^ iniibîted by vsry raany nations among which 
the greatest of alf ?s that of îne Gandandai (Gangaridai), againsfwhom 
Alexmie-- dtd i3t jai^rrake an expédition beiag deterred by the 
multitude of th^ir eîepiirits. This région is separated froni Further 
India by t:ie g-eitest r.ver in chose parts, for it has a breadth of30 
stidiâ, but It adjoins the r^ïst of India which Aîexander has conquered'*.*^- 
Raychaudhuri identifies the -^greatest river in thèse parts' with the 
easiernraost raouth of ihe Ganges because its width is aiso given as 30 
stades. ïl seems to us, however. that the same width of the eastern and 
western Riouths of the Gaages is rather dubious and that the great river 
separatîng India and' Further înJîa ouldbethe Brahmaputra which 
may, of course, hâve beau joiaed with the easternmost mouth ofthe 

There is a belicf amoog certain uncritical Bengali .writers, who 
are prone to exhibit régional chauviaisiB, that Virgîl, in hh Georgîcs pays 
tributs îJ elle great valour of the ancestors of the Bengalis. Thus we are 
lold, '*The vaîoar ofthe peopîe of BfîBgal was. .known ail overthe 
ancien!. world, ..*■.„, The great Roman poet Virgil aiso tells us ia his 
■ Gêôrgics that he woald reco^rd in *sotîd. goid' and ivory' the. valeur' of 
the peopîe of Lower Bengai*'^'? Of course after the report about the 

14. .1...C. Majumdar, Ciass*. Je» l>îi*, p. 2Sî, 
15« iMd ,: ,p*28.2, , 
, 16. . Sisi. MeMg.f op. elt*, p* 41, 
n. A.K.Sm. Misiarj and Cuîimre of Bengale Calcutta, 1963,. and 1972, p. , 16. 

Tbe safflfi.thlog is repeated m the mxûmes Bymmcs ,^ Symhesîs in HIndu 

Cn&ftf, Calcutta, Î973, p. 36, 

1978-1979] GANGARIDAI 37 

Gaagaridai had been carried to the West by Alexander's historians, 
Earopean writers sometimes vaguely referred to the powerful people of 
that nacne as a s^rt of mythical nation of the East; but the implication 
of the passage qa3ted above is based more or less oa misunderstanding. 

Virgil begins Book III of his Georgîcs with a section in which he 
proposes to Write a poem ealogisiog Aagustns Caesar and allegorically 
describes the said poem to be a temple meant for enshrining Caesar in 
it as the deity. In course of the description, while speaking of this 
imaginary temple's doors to be decorated with sculptures in relief 
delineating Caesar's victorîes over foes in the far-east and far-west of 
the Msditerraaean, Virgil says, **0n the doors I will fashion, in gold 
and solid ivory, the battle of the Ganges' tribe and the arms of con- 
quering Quirinus; there, too, the Nîle, surging with war and flowing 
fuli; and columns soaring high with prows of bronze''. We hâve quoted 
the above from the Locb Ciassical Library translation by H,R. Faîr- 
cIough,^8 ^\yQ says further in explanation, "ïn Xh.tpugnam Gangaridum^ 
Virgil refers to Antony's oriental troops. The rivers and mountains 
(e g. the Niphates) of conquered people were often represented in 
ttiumphal processions", 19 Since Caesar's victory over the Gangaridai 
is an imigiîiary event, VirgiPs référence is not particularly to the valour 
of the people of the Lower Ganges valley, but really represents thcra 
vaguely as a distant Eastern people of importance and wrongly as 
vanquished by the Romans. This merely shows that the Gangarid or 
Gangetic people were known to the Earopean authors as a powerful 
nation of the extrême east from the days of Alexander the Great.^o 

Careless and uncrîtical writers often find the valour of the 
Gangetic people of ancient Bengal in another Ciassical source. Thus we 
are told, -Valerius Flaccus in his epic pocw. thQ Argonautica ÛQSCTÏhes 
tbe martial Gangartdae as joîning the Scythians to fight against the 
Clochians and the party of Jason on the shore of the Black Sca;"^^ 

18. Virgil, Vol. I, Reviseded , 1950, pp. 156(text Unes 26-29) and l57(translation); 
cf. Virgil, edited with notes in English by J.G* Shepphard, London, 1878, pp. 

19. H.R. Fairclough, op. cit., p. 157, note 2; cf. JJ. Shepphard. op. cit., p. 127, 

20. R.C. Majumdar (His tory of Ancient Bengal, Calcutta, 1971, p. 35) says, **The 
Gangaradai (sic) are also mentioned by the great Roman poet Virgil in his 
Georgîcs (about 30 B.C.)*% and in its support, we are referred to pp. 354-55 
of his work entitled The Ciassical Accounts of India (Calcutta, 1960), which 
however, contain a few passages of the Georgîcs^ BooksI and II, but not the 
passage mentioning the Gangarid people in Book Ilï* 

21. P.CDas Gupta, The Excavations ai Fandu Rajar Dhîbî,Cd.lcuitz,[l$H] p. 45, 
in référence to J.H. Mozley, Valerius Flaccus^ Loeb Ciassical Library, pp. 304-05 
{VI* 67). See alo both the worksof A,K. Sur çited above, loc. cit. 


Uafortunatelyj it has not been realised that ît is a passîng référence iîi 
tht Argonatitîca by Valerios Flaccus (Istcentury a.d.) which îs not a 
historical text but a poem based on the myth about the Argonauts, on 
whicli we hâve fragments of the earlier Argonauîica of Apollonius 
(c. 200 B.c.) aod some elaborately wrought scènes in the fourth Pythina 
Ode of Piiidar (died c, 435 B.C). 'Argonautae% which is the name of a 
gfotip of heroes, is based on the name of the ship Argo which carried 
Jason and his 54 companions to Coîchis in an expédition for the recovery 
t>f the golden fleece, said to hâve taken place 79 years before the subjaga- 
tîon of Troy, i.e, 1263 B c.^^ The casiial référence to ihe Gangarid people. 
made b> Valerins Flaccus in his epic poem merely shows, as in the case 
of VirgiFs <je£?rfïC5, that the Alexandrian tradition regarding the martial 
character of t.his distant Eastern clan was echoed in the Enropean woxks 
about the beginning of the Ist century a.d. It shonld, however, be 
noted that J,H. Moziey says on the mention of the Gangarides by 
Vaierius Flaccus as foliows : -Jhe Gangaridae are not known except as 
an Iiidian tribe. Langen snggests that the poet had the Dandaridae in 
mind. qaoticg Tac. Ann. 12. 15, Strabo IL 2. 11.** 23 in any case in 
îhe early centuries of the Christian era when the Peripîus and Ptoleniy's 
Geography gave détails about the same peopie^ the Gangaridai really 
eajoyed only asma!I fraction of their former prestige of the Alexandrian 


In the Bombay Session of the Indian History Congress heJd in 
1947, 1 read a papers* which was later incorporated in my Studîes in the 
Geography of Ancient and Médiéval Indîa?^ The following points were 
made in it among others. Firstly, the expression Gangaridai, mentioned 
by the Classical authors and sometimes undersîood by Bengali writers as 
Gcnga-râsÈra, Ganga-râdha,Gaàg3-hrdaya, etc., is really the plural from 
based on the name Gange or Ganges i.e. Indian Gange (just as Âchaeme- 
mWci or the Achamenians, derived from ^^Aaemenei), with the augmen- 
tation of the îetter r, in the sensé of the Gangetic or Gangian peopîe. 
Secondly, the Periphs maris Erythrae {c. A.D. 82) applies the name 
Ganges not only to îhe river but aiso to a country and its capital both 
îocatcd aear the principal moutfa of the river which is the présent Bhâgî- 
rathi. Th.rdly, Ptolemy's Geography {c. a.d. 145), which mentions the 

. T". î^^ *^^"^" ^y "^°'*' '°^^*^^ t^« P^opIe called Gangaridai 

m ail the région about the mooths of the Ganges' (i.e. in the deltaic 

22. S« J. Lempriere. A Classical Dictionary. S.V. Argo and Arsonautae. 

23. Op. cit., p. 305, note 5. 

24. CL Proceedinffs, pp. 91 S 

25. Seelsted.. 1960. ChapterX. and 2nd éd.. 1971. Cfaapter XIII (pp. 213 ff.). 

1978-^1979] GANGARIDAI 39 

part of Lower Bengal) with their royal city called Gange, Fourthly, no 
people named after the river Gangâ is known from Indîan literature so 
that the powerfui people called Gangaridai by the Classical writers must 
hâve been known to the Indians by a dilfferent name. Fîfthly^ Kâlidâsa's 
Raghuvamsa (c. a,d. 400) loeates the Vanga people in the région where 
Ptolemy places the Gangaridai, i^e. in thedeltaic région of Lower Bengal 
intersected by the varions mouths of the Ganges. Sixthly, it was there- 
fore the people, who were known to the Indians by the name Vanga, 
were called Gangaridai by the Greeks. Seventhly, the création of the 
n^mQ Gangaridai, i»e., the Gangîans, was due to confusion which the 
Greeks apparently made between the similarly sounding names Fawga 
(or Vchgâh in the plural) and Ganga. 

In a note under the title ^Gangaridai' published in 1968,26 the late 
Professor Suniti Kumar Chatterji also first points ont the unsoundness 
of the équation oî Gangaridai^ïth Gangâ^râdha and GahgU-hrda or Ganga-- 
hfdi. Then he observes, '^II: was suggested by some that the basic word is 
Gangïï and the r niight be a sort of euphonie insertion coming between 
Ganga and the Greek affix îd, in the singuîar ides and in the plural idai 
(Latin idae). But that is not admissible, as in Greek there is no use of 
r as a euphonie insertion, and îd added to the basic word GahgUv/o\x\à 
give only Gangîd^' (p. 71). Hère he seems to offer a comment on my 
View without mentioning me by name. However, Chatterji has apparen- 
tly forgotten to take note of the fact that I hâve emphasised the élément 
of confusion between the Indian names Vaéga (or Vahgâh) and Gongà 
in Greek pronounciation leading to the rise of the form Gangarid with 
an augmentation of r. Even if then the euphonie augmentation of r is 
not allô wed by Greek grammar in such cases, as he says, anything seems 
to be possible as a resuit of confusion, and there is proof of this kind 
of confusion. Thus Ptolemy's Geography (VIL 1.42) mentions the 
two peoples known in India as Dara^afa and Ktdînda as Deradrai and 
KyUndrine respectively, the latter r having been unnecessarîly inserted 
in both the cases. Cf. also Ptolemy's Proclais (VII. 1 44) for the Indian 

Chatterji next says, '*The aflSx Sla is a common onein the Indo- 
Ary an speech, We hâve, for example, the ancient Indian tribal name 
of PïïficUla which goes backto the âge of the XJpanîsads. In Sanskrit 
Vahga normally means the Bengal country, and the plural form VangQlf 
stands for the people of Bengal; and the extension Vahgala means the 
country as well as the people" (p. 72) . On this we hâve a few remarks 

26. Studies in Indian Linguistics (Prof essor M*Bé Emeneau SastipUrti Vûlume), 
edited by Bhadriraju Krisîinamurti and published by the Centres of Advanced 
Study in Lînguistics, Deccan CoHego, Poona University, and Annamalai 
Unîversity, January, 1968, pp. 70-74. 


to offer. Firstly, the 5/a-ending tribal and geographical names are very 
rare în early Indîan lîterature. SecondJy, the ancient form of the name 
is Pancala and not Pancâla. Thirdly, Vangàh in the plural means both 
the laad and its people, beîog primariîy the name of the people and 
secondarîly the name of tbeir conntry. Fonrthly, Vangëla, on the other 
hand, primariîy means the land and secondarîly its people. 

Chatterji further says, "Can we assume that, like Vanga giving 
Vahgula, there was a îorm^Gangâlû from Gahgâ? Ganga "wonld mean both 
the country and the tribe, bnt '^Gahgala would mean only the people of 
the Gaiiga area or the Gahga tribe. The ëla affix would easily become âra 
in the mouths of the peapleof North-West of India. Weknow that from 
pre-¥edic times there were at least three dialects in Indo-Aryan a 
Western or r-dialect which bad no /, but only r; a Central r-and 
/-dialect which had boih r and /; and an Eastern dialect which had 
only I and no r ... ... In this way, a hypothetical assnmptîon that 

'^*'Gangâla, as a form or extension of Gange or Ganga^ became among 
the Aryan speakers of Western U.P. and Punjab ^Gahgâra: and this was 
adopted by the Greeks to give the name Gangar-id-ai** (p. 73). 

It is difficult for me to say whether this is sound linguistics; but 
apparenîly it is poor history. If the suggestion is that there was no / 
(but only r was used in its place) in the north-western areas of the 
InJiari sub-contincnt when it was under the Greeks, how is it that we 
find names like Peucelaotis (Puskalâvatî), Taxila (Taksasilâ), Sangala, 
Phegelas, Malloi (Mâlava), Agalassoi and Patalene in the said région in 
the Classical works describing Alexander's campaigns ? 27 Ptolemy's 
Geography also mentions Lambatai (Sanskrit Lampaka meanîng 
Laghman), Proclais (Puskalâvaaî), Taxiala (Taksasilâ), etc., wîth the 
ielter /. Then again, if there was a Gangala tribe so well-known to the 
Classical authors ender the name of Gangaridai, how can we explain 
the total absence of the name from Indian literature? As we hâve 
noted above, th e celebrity of the Gangaridai would suggest that they 
must hâve been known to the Indians but by a diflferent name. Secon- 
dly, we cannot think of any influence of Vangala on the formation of 
Gangala ^ modiâed to Gangëra or any analogy between the formation of 
the two because, while the name Gangaridai was well-known as early as 
thetimeof Alexander's invasion in the fourth century b.c. the name 
Vmmgala is a médiéval formation which is found for the first time in an 
inscription of a.d. SOS^^ the intervening period being more than eleven 
centuries. Chatterji himself realises the difficulty when he says, '*But 

ZF, Cf.Sircar, Casm^aphy ma Geography în Early Indian Uteruture pp, 16 
(oote Ç), 128; aîsa imiiM^i mnd Greeks in Amient Punjab pp 14 ff 

1978-1979] GANGARIDAI 41 

it must be admitted that there is a very great diiïicuîty io immediately 
accepting this dérivation, and that is due to ihe absence of the form 
Gangara or Gangâla \xx any Indîan document, ancient or médiéval" 
(p. 74). Stili his conclusion is ~ ''the suggestion that the basis of 
Gangaridai could be an old Eastern form like '^Gangâla as an extension 
of Gahgà (in the pronunciation of the peopie of North-West of India^ 
*Gangâra) paralleiing Vanga-Vangâla" (p*74). 

In this connection, Chatterji once mentions my name wîthout 
referring to any of my works in the foUowing passage : ''The suggestion 
bas also been put forward in the course of a discussion by Dr. Dinesh 
Chandra Sircar tbat the form Gangaridai^ exclusively confined to the 
Greek language, may be a modification or misreading of ihe form 
Vahgala, exiended with the Greek affix : ^Vangalidai or Bangaridaî 
mJght be misread as Gangaridai. But that is noî likely v^'hen we consider 
the phonetics or orthography of Greek in the early centuries before 
Christ. The form Vang&la might become in Greek Ban gara, with change 
of r to / through North-Western influence. But the Greek langaage 
had lost the sound of v or w as well as the ietter indicatJng this sound 
in ancient Greek, namely, the Ietter Diagamma (F), at least in the 
standardised Âttic dialect, some centuries before, and Greek would 

represeat the foreign sound of v (or w) only by b, hu (hy) or ou ... 

The spelling ^Ouangaridai could no t hâve become Gangaridai, and 

neither could Bangaridai be modified to Gangaridai., The Diagamma 

(F) was not iû use m the Attic or the Koinë at the time of Alexander 
the Great. So we could not conceive of a form like Fangaridai being 
madified to Gangaridai"' (p. 74). 

Unfortunately, this linguistic and palaeographic discussion seems 
to be entirely out of place because I had never any occasion to say that 
Gangaridai was derived fvom Vangala ox BahgUra through Vangaîidaî ot 
Bangaridai It should be noted that, whether the change of va to ga is 
warranted in phonology or orthography is iramaterial to me, because I 
hâve never referred to grammatical change but hâve onîy emphasiped 
the part played by confusion* Hère therefore Chatterji first wrongly 
attributesa particular view to me and then réfutes it quite unnecessarily* 
It âppears that he had only heard a report about my views about the 
Gangaridai, but had never any occasion to read my writing on the 
subject. Moreover, it can be easily proved that the Greeks could hâve 
confused any othercansonant with the Ietter g^ in a tribal or geogra- 
phical name associated with the Ganges, Thus Ptolemy's Geography 
(VIL 2. 13) mentions the peopie known in India as Tahgana as Ganganot 
(plural ofGaw^an?) whose country lay *along ihe course of the Ganges 
on its eastern side and further to the northV and was watered by the 
Sarabos (Sarayfi), 






LL The following lines are but a few glirapsesof aresearch 
work whîch has been undertaken three years back and whicb consists in 
the analysis and French rendering of the Martcisamàîtâ. a Vaikhanasa 
text, with a spécial attention for the architectural devices. Wemtist 
point out that thèse remarks do not aim at exposing the results of our 
research (as it would need much space); we want only to show the 
guidelines of our research. We shall center our remarks on the topic of 
the Vaikhanasa temple as the resuit of a process whîch îs both ritual and 

This doub le point of view implies two sets of questions : 

1) What is the significance of the temple construction among the 
ritual process which is described by Marîci ? To try to reply to this 
question, we shall give a brief survey of the pratîsihs (installation), a 
ceremony which is essential to understand the aim of the construction 
of the temple. 

2) What is the spécifie contribution of the Markisamhilâ regar- 
ding architectural terminology and technique ? 

L2. In thèse remarks we shall refer to one of the three existing 
éditions of the Maridsûmhïta only; the title of the book is êrivimanS'' 
rcanakalpah, éd. by Y. Raghunathacakravarti Bbattacârya and Sri 
Setumâdhavacarya, Madras, 1926; Nâgarî script,- 101 chapters, '522 
pages; Thiseditionisoftencalled'*Tirupati édition'*.* 

1, Sce Gonda, Médiéval ReUgioUs Literature, p. 144, note 38, in finct 


2.1 Whereas the word sthâpana seems to concern more precisely 
thephysical settiog up of the icon {bera) and of the temple (vimana), 
iht Word pradsiha refers more partîcularly to their ritual installation, 

The prescriptions relatîng to crafts and arch^fecture are subordi- 
nated and integrated in the process of the pradsihâ : the samhiti of 
Marîci beiog a manual which is written for the practiîioners of the 
temple cuit, for the âciïrya-^, that it enables the master of the cere- 
naonies (acïïrya) to discrimmate between the différent prescribed 
stage^of craft {silpa) performances and to integrate îheFe stages into 
the same récurrent pra^isM^ process. Throngh ail the parts of the 
Martcîsafpkim which are dealingwith sflpa, the same ritual of installa- 
tion is being taken up again and adàpted accord ingto the dijQfercnt 
materiaîs used for the îcoa,^ according îo the size of the icon^ or other 

Tht sllpa techniques get their significance only when they are 
ûormed by and refered Io in the prati$fhà.^ Thus for instance the 
coafection of a clay icon would re>ult only into a lifeless sîatue if, by 

a séries ofappropriate ritual opérations, the masterof the cérémonies 
were noi transmuting each of the materiaîs into as many éléments of 
God's body itself^ : the ritual controis the craft, assumes it and imbibes 
ît step by step with metaphysica! reality. 

2.2 L Pratis^hë expresses the idea of ''firm foundation'% ''stable 
place";7 i^ f^et, in the Marîcisamhiia, it does not mean so much 
''stability'' than "stabilization'* ioto a space which has been previously 
ritually prepared aod defined. Although it includes the idea of material 
transportation and settîng îip, the word praththa points ont a meta- 
physîcal nuance which i s not rendered by the simple word sihapana : 
the praiisiha h the: installation of the icon and of the temple in the field 
of the divine' Power;. ■ 

But also, whereas the cuît ( VarcT VCArT) consists in the regular 
(miya) or in a periodica! réactivation^ of the èakti of God, the praîîstha 

2. Compare Marîcî 16, Î7, 18. 

3. See for instance Marîci 16, p, 74. 

4. Compare with 2.2.2. infra. 

5. Compare with Ens. ArchL Dagens, p. 124. 
«* See Marîci Î7, p. 82; and ibid, 18. 

7. See M^, p 671, coL B; J^ Gonda, Ayatana. Madras 1969, p. 25 and sqq. 
'mltm ""' "^'""^'^^ ""'"'' '"''"""' '"' ^'' ""'"' chemins! Yoh 2, Parï 

8- See KBW, p. 270: the utsava (festival) impîies the idea of wakening 



aimsat the preliminary fixation of the saktî m the icons and in the 

22.1. Marici 33, p. 241, counts up 25 moments in this ritnalof 
installation, a gênerai scheme which is described in détails in Afûtri^i 
26-33: the same ritual process is applied partly or fuîly to as many 
différent objects as clay icon,^ foundation bricks/stones,'^ crowning 
of the roofir etc; we find this process being applied 16 times în 
the twentyârst chapter of the samhitâ. In thèse various cases we 
remark some omissions (for instance, that of the cuit of the jar, 
{kumbhapUjâ) about which it is difficuU to décide whether they are 
intentional or net. 

Within this whoU pratîsjhâ-pïocess let us hâve some remarks 
done about two peculiar moments : the opening of the- eyes fafcs}«n- 
mocana) and the cuit of the jar (kumbhapûjâ), 

2.2,3. The ceremony of the openiog of the eyes is the third 
moment of the pratisfhu and is described in Marici 27. p. 205-208. It 
is endingi2 with the drawing of the eyes : the lashes (paksman), the 
eyelids (vartman), rcd (rakta), white (sukla) and black f/trs^a) cîrcles 
(manâala) - which represent the palpebral rims, the sciera and the iris - 
andtheapple (jyoîîr manâala) of the eyes. Thèse six parts of the eye 
are successively identified with earth, water, fire, wind, space f^fc^s^j 
and the suprême Self fparaw^/mflwj who is Vîsnu. 

During this ceremony the icon is connected with the âve éléments 
and the metaphysical transcendent principle and the opening of the eyes 
is the sign of awakening of God 1o the cosmos; it is the first act for the 
unfolding of the divine Power over the world through the channel of the 
iconic eyes; through their gazes God and the gods are radiating their 
Power and theîr essence. 

2 2.4. The kumbhapuja, eîghth moment of the praîisfha - process, 
is another important one. With the help of various techniques, as 
âv^Aana (invocation), /7ra4»i5jama (breath control) and dhyana (médita- 
tion) and with the help of a séries of ritual deeds,i3 the Power (sakti) 
of God is drawn into a jar filled with water. 


Marïci 18. 


Afarîcï 6, p. 26-27. 


Mûtrïa 13. p. 64. 


Marïci 27, p» 206. 


M^rrc/ 31, p.221-225. 


Later on^^ the Power imbibed in the water of the jar is transmitted 
to the dhruvabera icon in the following way : one soaks a bunch of 
herb [kurca) into the water of the jar aod one moistens the top of the 
head of the icon with the water which is full of Power, wbile nttering 
approprîate formulas. ^^ Then by a séquence of invocations, in the samo 
way as one kindles a lamp with another one, the Power set into the 
permanant icon (dhruvabera) is transmitted to the three concentric 
enclosures (avarana) of protecting gods, to the two goddesses, to the 
attendants which are placed into the cella (garbhagfha) and to the 
varions icons {kautukahera, utsavabera, tiz) which are functional aspects 
of the centrai and permanent {dhruva) one for the completion of diflFcrent 

2.2.5. Conscqnently ih& praîî^a àoQs not consist only in the 
installation of the icon; it describes ako vice-vef.yû the installation of 
God*s sato' insîde the iconic stmctnre: the ritnal realizes this conci- 
dence between the one divine entity which divides itself into its visible 
forms and the set of the procédures of construction which are normcd 
and orientated in the expectatîon of the divine descent. 

2.3, Moreoverthe whoie temple itself is considered as an iconic 
deîîy and as such it undergoes the process of praii^hàJ^ 

We recognize thus the différent moments of the praiisjhë : the 
khumbhapûjë,^'^ the bathing of the temple bysprînkling it ail around at 
the ground level,^^ the surrounding of the temple by a thread 
{prûiîsarabandha),^^, thedressingof the temple with newclothes from the 
iop crowning {sihUpi) till the basement (adMstthma) or till the dipgrove 
(fcaj?0m) of-probabiy-the entablature,20 

Finally one makes an invocation through the uttering of the four 

sacred formulas (maiï/r^^) : ^^Temple (vîmanam); MadQ of Viçnu 
(v-imumayam) : Abode of God [devavasafm); Born of Vaikuntha {vaU 
kufékùdbhamm''^' Vaikuntha, idéal pattern of ail the temples is des- 
cribed in Martci 87, p. 494-495. 

14. T&isistliesettiiigof both tlie permanent and mobile icons followed bv their 

invocation. ■ ■ ■ .' ^ 

15. Mirîd33,p.239.. ... 

16. .Marîrf 39, p,267 and sqq. 
17,' Marlcl 39, P.26S-270. 

M* Mmï€i3% pan. , 
B. JUâ. 

m ; Compare with Martci % p.4û. 
■2L lfelci.39,p:E72., . 

1978 --1979] ACCORDING TO MARiCISAliîHITA 47 

Thus throagh tht pratistha-proctss the temple ismade of the same 
metaphysical stufif as the central icon is made. 

3.L1. Maricî is gtving precious information not only about the 
metaphysical and ritual functions of the temples but also about the 
architecture of the temple itself, 

The first type of informations given in our samhita concerns the 
the distinction betweer» the Vaikhinasa temple and the temples of other 
Hindu community* 

Maricî 77, p. 467-468 distinguishes between the disposition of the 
PaScarâtra and the Vaikhânasa temples on the site; Marici 3y p.lO, 
distinguishes between the vaîdika (Vaikhinasa) and th& tantrika ways of 
instalUng the temple : one may wonder wether the word tantrika is not 
hinting at the Pàicarâtra cuit in this passage. Marîci 38, p*264, des- 
crîbes the respective positions ofone VaisBava temple and one Saiva 
temple in the same conglomeration; Marîci gives the indication that the 
Saiva temple must be built according to the rules enumerated in the 
Saiva treatises;22 Marîci gives also informations uboMt Xh^ trimurtîstha^ 
^a/2<3, that is the case when Vismu, Siva and Brahma are installcd in 
différent shrines in the same conglomeration. 

3.1.2. From the above remarks it should be concluded that there 
is a spécifie type of architecture and town-planning for the Vaikhanasas 
and that it should be differentiated from the Saiva and even PâScaratra 
ones. Although this theoretical view is contradicted both by some histo* 
rical and ieoni)graphical facts, there is one instance of remarkable coïn- 
cidence between the Marlcisamhita and one built Vaikhânasa temple : 
the Sundaravaradaperumal temple in Uttaramérîîr. The work tJ/^ara- 
meriîr, by F. Gros and R. Nagaswamy bas already shown the 
similarities between the text and the building^^ on the iconographical 
point of View. We hâve tried to find out how far the architectural 
devices described in the text were corrcspondingto those of the building. 

Marici35-Z6 gives the original description of a type of building 
for which we find many exa mples in South India : it is a temple provided 
With 3 or 4 ccllm {garbhagrha^ garbhïïgiïra) which are superposed eacb 
on the other and contain successively a figuration of Visnu in one of the 
three positions : standing, sitting or recumbent. The instance of the 
Sundaravaradaperumal temple in Uttaramêrîîr is now well-known. We 

22. Aiflrîa, 38, p. 264. 

23, Uttaramêrûr, pJQ-ZB. 

About the contradictory historical facts as an instance, let us rcmark 
thattheî^rï Venkatesvara temple in Tirupati bas bccn used successively by 
PincarStras and by Vaikhanaïas. 


may also meotion the Vaikunthapera mal temple in Kâncîpuram; the 
Tirukkostiiiyur temple near Sivakââi in Ram anathapiiram district (Tamîl 
Nadu); the Kiidal Algar temple in Madurai;24 the Mannârkôyil temple, 
TiraneîveU district (Tamil Nadu). It wouîd be an interesting arcbeolo- 
gîcai study to define the common typology ofthose temples and to 
décide their similarîties and différences. 

3.2.1. Leavîng now the idea of an exhaustive exposition about 
the architecture as described by Marïci (of vvhîch we are dealingtho- 
roughly in our grouad research), we shall hâve only a short glimpse of 

the original architectonic points of înterest in Marîcîsamhîîïï. 

3.2.2 Regardiog works whîch are preceding the building of the 

temple, one (or several?) foundation-waîl (M5/aifc«ija) is àrranged in 
the foandatioi pit (/cMfa); on this fbundatîon-waïi; the sole (toma) 
and.then the^ basement i<idhhjhana} or the footing-form' {w|^û^i#M);a:re' 

made to lie ^^ ■ ■ ,■..:::*: :,,',/,'^ 

3.2.3. Among the architectural éléments, the nomenclature used 
by Mârlci for the hnsùment (adhuthana) is particularly clear^^: the 

padabandha {or ■paiiikangabandha) cîass is characterized by tho mahapaiii 
(or mahàpaitfkë) mouiding whereas the ptatibandha {oi praîyahgabandhà) 

class is characterized by îheprarf-frieze, 

The définition ofthe pillar-crowning fpa^fà^raP^ is equalJy inte- 
resting: thus we find a survey of ih^ cQth^\(bodhîkE); àm (virakanda)i 
abacns (phalakâp-^ with îts si ab fv^rmj and ils cchinm (msandhika, 
padma); buïb (kumbha) aod a very detaiUed account of the diJeTerent 

parts of che vase (râlf, ''^corbeille»' in French). ,, 

Although the passage is not clear, we find also a rare description 

aboul a biilb-ioof.-^ 

3,2 4. About architectural structures Marïci gives a detailed and 
systematic description of one-storeyed^o and multi-storeyedsi temples. 
He mentioos the peculiar case of a temple of four élévation levels 

'^^' n^7R^^''''^''^fT [MimramérUn 70^88;, Semînar on inscriptions^ ' 
PSW^ '^'^' ^^ ^^^" '""^^^^ ^^ Madurai: Sec Devak4jaxi: 

25... Marïci?, p.29,, ■ , , 

26, MarMB. 
'TI.' Marïci 9, p. 31, S^/p* 269: ' " ■ ■ ■ ■ 

■ 28. Pdaka In Mariai 39, p. 26% . :.,v-v.,:' 

■ 29^^ Msrïci 9, p, 37.. /, :;: 

3L M&rMÎÙ, 35,36* ". , . ■ '^^ ■■'■':'■ ^:: :.;■ 


(caturvargayukiap^ roofed according to the mQthod, lupam vidhana. 

Marîci brings also out th^rough informations about the building 
of the sacrificial apartment (yiïgasUla) and their architecture;^^ aboxit 
the kitchen building (pacanalaya).'^^ 

3.2.5, Regarding the gênerai disposition of the temple we find 
some discrepancies about the number of enclosures (âvar^^a, /?râA:âraj 
which can be seven in Maricî W, p, 51 and five in Marlci II, p. 5^^ 
whereas Marici 11, p. 52, recognîzes the use of the five gateways (gopura) 
séries (the first gateway beîog thù dvarasobha) which is raeant for a 
set of five enciosures only. 

3.2.6, Maricî 12; 20 and 21 are giving a very detailed accountof 
the places of Goi*s attendants and other deities; but the location of 
thèse places is so intimately liaked with the texture of the rîtuals that it 
bas beea sometimes difficult to décide wether some terra refers to a 
purely ritual structure or to an architectonic structure. Consequeirtly 
if the raeaning oî prakiïra (enclosure) seems to hivc a connotation which 
is exclasîvely architectural (see Marîci 11 and 12), the meaning of 
avarana has an ambiguous status : thèse âvarana-s can be materialized in 
an exteroal architecture, as in Marici 20, p. 103-108 for instance, but 
they may also be ''built*' mentally only as ritual protecting enciosures 
around the dhruvabera and the kautukabera?^ 

4. This last remark lead us back to some previous statcments^^ : 
In the safnhitâ of Marîci the metaphysical and ritual structures arc 
prevailing over the architecrtural construction; they constitutc the real 
framc of the architectural praxis. The Vaikhânasa temple is nelther a 
gigantîc structure nor a *'symbolic" building, but it is the abode of a 
living Godj the place wherc Visnu entertains His worshippers, whcre He 
displays His sakti and where His devotees arc offering their cuit. 

32. Marici 35. p. 247 {kûtâgâra lypt of temple); see also Marîci 9. 

33. Martci 29, p, 211-212, 37, p. 2:>2. etc. 

34. Morîci 1 1, p* 55. 

35. See MarUî 4, p. 19 in fine; 41. p. 281-282, for instance. 
36# See 2. 2*1 /supra. 

109 — 4 



■Dmkunjarï D. Devakunjari, Madurai îhmsh the ogès (from the 
. . mlkst tm îo ÎSÙlA.D), PhD. Thesis,UQiversîtyof Madras, 

n.d. i:., .r:;., 

Ens. Ârchl Oosens : Les Enseignements architecturaux è /' 0H(^ma et 
à iîûwrûvjgûWû, B DegCQS, Pondichery, 197?. 

Qonâa, Meà&é relipous Httrame . l Gmk^ Meiiewî religions 
îiterawe in Sanskrit, W\iàdtîï,Wl. 

KB^: Kâyapa'sbookofwisdomJ.GoMm,lkE4\it,\%^^^ 

Marid: seel.2.sup''a. 

Mf: M. Moaier-Williams, A Smskrît'EngMMctionary,OiM, 

Semînar on inscriptions An interesting inscription from Uttmmrûr : 
' ■' article ofV QàMpd.û\ Stk'^ui m Smînar on inscriptions : î%é 
ed byR Nigâswâmy, Madras, 1968, p. 178 and sqq. 

Uttaramûr: Uttmmirùr: légendes, histoire, monumenti, 7. Gm and 
R. Nagaswamy Pojidickry, 1970. 



Nameofthe Monument ... Candramauîîsvara temple {Iru^tharam- 

udaiya-Mahâdevar : Irupmram-uiaiya 

location ..; YHmkili [Ettmykkâl {or) EitâmkkBl), 

Punganur taluk, Chittoor district (A P.) 

Foundation inscription ... It is found in the central shrine, engraved 

■ on the base of the temple. 

Date ' ... The 22nd régnai year of Parakesari 

Râjendracola I, i.e., A.D: 1033-34. 

Builder , ... A Vellila». 

Rénovation of the Shrine : An inscription of Râjarâja (idetttical with 
Râjarâja III) engraved on the walls of the temple and dated in his 29th 
régnai year, Visvâvasu (a.d. 1244-45), refers to the rénovation ofthis 
tempicoutof the funds coUected from the public {podu) by âelvaganga, a 
descendant of Kumbhan-gâmundan who formerly constructed the temple 
(koyil pai}du eduppitta Kumbhan-gSmundan-makkal Èelvagahgan podu 

The name Irugisvara indicates the possibility of the deity being 
named after Iruga-mahirija (c. a.d. 1035-70), the Vaidumba king, who 
was the contemporary of Râjendra I. It is obvions that the Vepla whose 
name is given in the later record as Kumbhan-gâmundan, obviously 
set up the deity ia the name of his local overlord Vaidumba Irugall, 

* IamthankfultoSriK,O.Krishnan, Chief Epigraphist, Archaeological Sur- 
veyoflndia, Mysore-5 for his valuable suggestions, 
'i. ^iî.£p.,1906,No,575. 
2. it)id.,No.576, 


and constructed a temple [kavil pondu eduppîtta). The name Irugisvara 
continutd right upto the29ihyear (a-d 1244-45) of Rijarâja IU. We 
do not know when the présent uamc Candramaullsvara was adopted. 

Description : The temple facing east consists of a sanctum-sanctorum, 
garbhagrha square (caturaira) on plan, a vestibule {ardha-mandapa) and 
abroad greit haïl mahë-mandapa) in front. The central shrine has an 
ekitala vimâna, built of stone upto the sikhara (Plate No. 1). The first 
ra/anses on the mjulding pratij of the basement [adhisthâna). The 
aihisihSna comprises of a rectangular moulding up3na which is obviously 
knowa from ts présence in the front hall [mukha-mandapa), a moulding 
of the face jagati. ioscribed three fold moulding called tripatta-kumuda, a 
neck {k M'ia) with (pil ister like) small columns [galapâdas] enclosed by 
fillets [kampas) on eithcr side, an inscribed pattikâ and âprati at the top 
upon which the wal! [bhini] rises 

The bhini of the vimâna has four pilasters including the two can- 
toningpilas,trrs of the square cross-section The pilasters hâve square 
&h&h-{kali. wnh broad fillet at the top. marked by décorative design 
bands {pùdma bandhaoî i3mam). idai-kailu below the ill-defined kalasa, 
with ffli .n bicween the kahka below and ihe bulbous kumbkaabowe, 
the inverted and smoofh doucine (padmaot pâli), the abacus [phaîaka), 
square and a ittle thick followed by a square r%ra-katahacmf\n% plain 
bevdîedcorbeh(è;iMffjand the cross-corbeis of similar type in the 
cantoning pdasters. The wall is plain wità no devakôsthas to house 
images. Ths pramra on thecorbels carry the beam [uttara], equalin 
w dth and height as the corbels below Above this is the vâjana, a pro- 
jectmg course uf the comice followed by a vaîabhi, which is decoratcd 
with himm fneze [hav^mari) and bhûtagatpas showing différent dancing 
P .ses The cornice {^kapota) over the mlabhi is smooth and flexed with 
rdecora^ed low.-r brim The kamai, embeliished by four arched open- 

intciv. s, The end, of the kûdu are left open. Thèse arches do not havc 
Th. corners of the kapota are decorated with scroll-work(itc^/;tfc.,„to). 
W^X^^""':'^'^''' ^°°^'"ê ^î^b recalling the patrs factng wet "ho h h ' T'f ""'"'" ^''^^ '''' '^^ '^' 

Above th.s slab n h^ HZ u? '^°" ^"'"^ '""^ '"^"^^ «" ^'^'^^ 
its te/ ^urmou t d ; the r:!r;r'1 ir^^^ ^'"^^ P'^^^t^^ on 

for-lrheight/wide t ts oSLnfiir"/'^^^^^^^ 
Mhakpadma and a .etal ^ L 7e eie I?t '' ^t^top carrying an 

/' ïfl me centre. It has on the four cardinal 

Fig. I 

Yâtavakili, Chandramoullàvara Temple, 

General view of the Vimâoa with ardhamandapa and 


Fig. il 

Yâtavâkili, dvârapâla 

Fig m 
Yâtavâkili, dvârapâla 


points four /rw^îw^' with pronounced klrtîmukhas , The ^rîvar has, on the 
eastern side, Subrahmanya seated on the éléphant,^ on the southern side 
seated Daksînâmurti, on the west seated Visnu, and on the north seated 
Brahma. The heads of thèse images rise up înto the kûâus. 

From the base to the cornice the features présent în the ardha- 
mandap a and mahâ-maftdapa are thesameasin ihevîmïïna. Thèse two 
matfdûpûs ha.yQ a flat top. The pillars of the mahiï-mandapa hâve ihe 
same pattern observed in the case of the pilastcrs of the central shrine 
with one important dififcrence that în the case of the former mostof the 
parts are circular and octagonal and in the case of the latter they are 
square, The sculptures in the grîva-dèvakosfhas may be assigned to 
c. eleventh century A D. 

The sculpture in the east side of the ^r< va (Plate No. 2) is that of 
two armed Subrahmanya seated on the éléphant.'* The éléphant facîng 
east is carvedout abutting from the edge of the base of the grive?, mak-* 
ing it appéar as though the deity is riding on the éléphant. His rigfat 
hand is shown in abhaya pose and the left is on the thigh. He wears a 
karandamakuta and paîrakuftdalas. Hîs right leg is shown resting on 
the ground while the left is folded. 

The grivU has, on its south^ a four-armed seated image of Daksina» 
miïrti. He holds a nUga in the upper right arm and agniin theupper left* 
The lower right is in abhaya and the lower left placed on his thigh. His 
bent right leg is placed on the ground, while his left leg is shown folded. 

3* Some scholars havô identified this image with ^ra/imai5^f 5 form of Subrah- 
manya* K R. Srinivasan. Some Aspects oï Religion as Reveaîed by the Earîy 
Monuments and Literature of the South^ p* 64 (Sankara-Pârvati Endowment 
Lectures, i960). 

4. ïbid. The Paripâdal describes him as the rider on the éléphant called pînimu- 
kam ipinîmukam ûrndu) (No. 5:2) The Padirruppattu (11:16, 2nddecad, 
Lines 5-8) refers to his destruction of J^uran with his vi/(as pear) or éakti, 
mouûtedonhis éléphant (kadun^cina-viral vêl kaliru Urdâhgu)^ The image of 
Subramanya lepresented as a deity seated on éléphant with a spear(.^a^/0 in 
one of his upper arms in conforma ty with the above text. The éléphant mount 
isalso suggested in other Tamil literary works like P/7r/i5/i5rM (56 : 7-8) and 
Tirumurugârruppadai (109 AQ; Une 122). Apart from thèse early literary réfé- 
rence suffîcientîy large in number, we hâve sélective représentation in the form 
of sculpture in the eariy temples dedicated to éiva and Subrahmanya himself, 
The earliest of the seated form is in the upper tier of the eastern face of the 
Arjunaratha in Mâmallapuram. The sculpture hère is of two-armed deity seat- 
ed on the backof an éléphant» A similar representarion isalso on the east of 
theupper tierof Muvarkovil vlmàna in Kodumbâliîr* In a temple dedicated 
to Subrahmanya in Kannanur in the former Pudukkottai are assignable to the 
middleof the tenth century A.D., the image of Subrahmanya bas aksamâia 
along with the wtapon éakth 


He wears similar ornaments as seen in the image of Subrahmanya, The 
western side of the griv3 bas a seated, four armed Visnu, carrying Sankha 
and cakra in the upper arms and the lower arms in the case of the other 
images described above. The grivâ on its north has a four-arrned seated 
Brahmi. The aîtribute in the upper right hand is net clear. He has a 
pilcher {kamattdalu) in the upper left. The lower right hand isin abhaya 
and the iower left is placed on the left thigh- Tie right leg is bent and 
placcd on ths grouad while the left is shown folded. 

The front walI of the ardhamaifdapa bas two niches, oneon either 
sjdtof the cntrance. The two standing dvSrapàîas flanking the entrance 
in thèse two niches are portrâyed iû différent foims panicularly in the 
disposition of the head and the legs. Despite the stunted nature of the 
body, thegraceful, restrained nature of the images isnot diminished. 
The rf.aro^a/a on the left of entrance has his left leg placed behind his 
nght (Plate No. 3). The dvarapala on the right of entrance bas natyasta- 
paéa'. the legs crossed, with his right leg shown across the left and 
'^^IZT.T^T^l ^'"'^- '''' ^^^'--^«/-^ are four armed with 
A^a and the lower left leaning on clubs (gads). They hâve teeth 

/»ow*«^atomtheirearlobes, thkk yajnôpavita, (short in one of'.h« 
images,) neck ornaments (haras), udarabandha (in one of theXrll 
'mages oni>„ kinîmukha-këyuras, ralayas and ankle^ Thl T 
i^rdkaruka) in the waist is shown tied by a thick belt Ïw " 

Io,a,-pctaI décoration and a medial bandYanlg éo^TrZl " '?*'"' 
ornemental bands hanging down from either /nS? of The bdt '" °°" 

Ofthem the 

^M-,« and the lower left in Stall^^^^^^^^ the lower right i^n 
o' '.er dress are sh.wn flowlnfo HitherT.' 'f f'"^''^' ^he folds 

'^*W-..ri.sabovc. The carv^n^ofte^^ett teTro ^'^^'^ *'^ 

^^ is quite proport ion a te. 


3) Kaumïïrî., with a peacock on thc pedestal below, îs seated and 
four-armed. The upper right hand seems lo carr^y a kukkuta ai d the 
uppèr left hand a sûla. The lower right hand is in abhaya and the. 
lower left in bhUmîsparsa-mudra. She wears a karaftda-makuia makara" 
kundalas^h3ras^yajnopavita,keyura and kahkana, The curly hairs are 
well delincated and shown fiowing on either .sidt of the ear-lobes reach* 
ing the shoulders. Thé dress folds shbwn hâve two thicR folds 
parallelly drawn with tbree médian bands. 

4) Vaîsnavi îs seated on a pedestal which seems to hâve a lanchana 
resêiBbling a seated Garuda, Of her four arms, the right upper hand 
holds a cakra and the left upper arm a sankha, The lower rrght is in 
abhaya and the lower left in bhûmisparsa^mudrâ. She wears a kûranân^ 
makufa, makara^kundalas in the ear-lobes. three rows of haras, yajno- 
pavlia with two strîngs, the keySras, the bahuvalayas, and the anklets. 
Thc hairs are shown flowing on either side. A thick central band is 
seen in the dress-folds îooking as though it is tightened m the middle 
of the waist. 

5) Varahî, with a boar face, as the Pame implies, is four-armed. 
Of her two upper hands, the right arm is holding a swoid {khadga) and 
the left one a kheia facing back. The lower right hand is in abhaya, 
and the lower left in bhûmisparsa- mudrs. On the pedestal of this image 
is a lànchana, which seems to be the standing figure of a bufifalo She is 
adorned with a karandamakuia, hïïraSy yajnopavita, keyuras, bàhuvalayas 
and the anklets. She wears a fcwc^frûfWAa unlike the images discussed 
above. Only a waist band and no other part on the loins is seen. 

. 6) The image of Indrâni in this group îs not avaîlable. 

7) Camwjy^d îs shown standing with her right foot placed on the 
body of the apasnmrapurusa, her left leg being bent at knee on the 
pedestal, Shùhas a. jaia-makuf a, pair akundalas^ four hands, the upper 
right arm holding a damaru by handle and the upper left hand a nëga^ 
whïle the lower right hand holds a long /r/iw/a hittmg the back df- 
apasmQrapurusa and the lower left, a skull (kapala) The tassels of her 
jiï#5 are shown in a well spread-out fan-likefashion, She wears close 
h&ra and kankana as also a kucabandha. The dress folds are well 
delineated in this image. The apa.SAw^ra facing front is two-armed is 
in a ly ing posture The toScAana on the pedestal îs not clear. 

Ail the images cxcept that of Câmuçda are shown &eated with 
right leg folded and resting on the left knee and the left leg placed on 
thc base 


la thîs temple is seen an eight-armed seated figure of Kâla- 

Bhmrml on bhadm-pitha, showing two dimunitive pilasters at thc ends 
and a rccumbeat demoo {apasmàrapurusa) shown in the pedestal. She 
wîclds în ber right arms in the order from above, a long trisula having 
a pair of three proogs oneabove thcother thrust into the chest of the 
apûsmëfQ, a long sword, a club {gadiï) and a dagger, while her left arms 
holda damaru, a shield {khéta), a hcll {ghanta) and ^hov/l (kapala). 
Stîc is seated with her right kg bent at knee and raised and her left, 
aiso bent at knee diagonally placed on the head of the apasmara. She 
bas a flowing, thick, jaiabhara; she has a fierce expression and protruding 
teeih* She is adorned with pairakundalas m the two ear-lobes, yajno^ 
pmiia^ neck oraameots {graheyakas) ^ armlets [Bahuvalayas) ^ bracelets 
{kmkQmm) znà z.nkUu {manjiras), The dress, with its evenly spaced 
coiffeurs is tied fay a three-tiered waist band, thc ends of which are let 
loose in the centre. This dress ends np just below the knee» To the 
right of her right leg is shown a standing dog, facing front. Thc dog 
shown on the right indicates that she is the female counter-part of 
Bhaîrava, which is indeed a rare phenomenon. Thc apasmâra who is 
îeaningon the floor underthe goddess' foot, is two-armed, and is turning 
Mh body and face towards the front. He has a sword in his right hand and 
a shieîd in his left. The démon has his left foot bent at knee placed 
oiî thc pedestal and the raised right leg, also bent at knee, is shown 
rcsting on the pilaster end. He wears neck ornament, valayas, etc. 
besides an ardkomka. His hairs are shown tied up on the top of thc 

Ânothsr sculpture in the same temple isof Karttikeya, four- 
mmtû,%lmémglnsamabhahga, with the peacock behind. -He holds 
a spcar in the upper right hand, probably pa$a in the npper left hand 
m-hilc hîs lowerrîghihand. isaow lost (probably would ^ hâve been in 
ûbhaya) mû the lower left in kalyavatambîta. He wears a karanda- 
mokiiia, thcbaseofwhichisioathickband looking like a turban Vas 
m thc case of BSlasnbrahmanya at Uttaramerur, etc.), séries ofAsra^ 
gmiveyakas, cakmtjftdalas. yajmpmitam 3 strings, simhamukha b3hu^ 
m%ii# armlets, triple-bandcd i/rfamAa^i^Aa, ornamental girdle with 
ti^iiMila déco in its cmtrc, ardhoruka over which an o^na^ 

iBCiitalbandisshawnacross.inacii.rve and waist cloth hanging on thc 
iidcs. broad ankleis and manjiras. There Js a decorated and Lit 
mlpmmmîi behind the head,. «ecorated and ornamen- 

Aîl thèse sculptures seem to be two centnrics later th^in fh. o i 
tares of the ri^^ê.afeosi.W and the dmramkl^,^^^ '^"'''^' '""^P* . 



The Mamsmni IX, 256 runs as 

This stanza mentions two kinds of 'thicves' who deprive others of 
their property. They are referred to as prakâsa and aprakâsa (or 
pracchanna) in the Manusmrti (IX, 257). As becomes clear from the 
îoWomvLg vtî%t, h^ praka'sataskara^ (ôr prakâ'savancakaY are meant 
traders (pai}yopajivinah} etc., and by aprakâéataskaré (or pracchanna- 
vancakay are meant thieves, forest-dwellers, etc. (stensfaviksdayah). 

Wiiile explaining the verse cited above Medhâtithi makes a 
renaark which does not bccome clear atfirstsight. Hesays: 

The expression û/i7a5Â:flrflv>'ûvfl/r3rûJ5t is not quite clear. ïtsccmsto 
mean 'dealings or àcts/vj'ûvûASfaj which are beyond i.c., which are diffé- 
rent from those of a tbief. The best course to undersîand the wbole sen- 

tcnee would be to start from the end. (i,e.31ïï^^:explainedby Medhâ- 
tithi as 3T2^#f^:). (îmijrRf ^W #) ^ïïîiF%TO ^§[^4 ft#. 

1. I,e. the daylight 'thieves', 

2. As they are caUed in Manu IX, 257, 

3. I»e. the night 'thievesV 

4,. As tb^ are called ÎQ Manu IX, 257. 

5. The printed éditions hâve i|*r!MWWI''llfl' or 5rTOïI^5^Mïi( for which see 
:below»'., ■ . ■ 


This means that the Sf^^T (thieves) and the ^STR^PT^ (thieves) both are 
referred to in a sirnilar way ('ÇprF%'ïï^^) as taskara in the stanza 
(f|f%yi''dt*<l{^^) so that the ^m'^ thieves can be arrestcd (f^ïTCT^'O 
like the ^îî?^^ ones (^§^. Hence in what précèdes this part of the 
passage one expects to find the reason why both the ST^^T type of 
«R^S^îrqfî^ and the ^^m^ type of q^^S^ÎT^fR^ are referred to as 

The comnientator says the reason is that the dealings of the SRîf^ 
type (i.e. traders and others who raight indulge in cheating the 
customers), are not beyond those of a thief, i.e. they are, in efifect. 

siraiiar to those of a thief. The activity (ô^ï^f^) of this latter type (i e. 
the forest-dwellers and others who act at night) is of course, well known 
in the world (^ ^%S?%^fr2êin1%-4<!«fWra:). The activity of the 
former, in so far as it resuits in deprivrag others of their wealth, 
is similar to thèse. Hence both are calîed by the common name 

That the T^^s^fTCT^^ of the ^m^^ type who, in iX, 257, are 
specificaîly mentioned as fcHFSÎW^IÏÏ^'??: is calIed ?rÇ=R in our stanza 
needs no explanation. What requires explanatîon is the caliing of the 
deceitfui merchants etc. as ^^X. Medhâtithi justifies this by point- 
ing out that the dealings of the iatter are not at ail différent from those 
of the former. ïï 3f%çifq[i^q^ thus, in efifect, means df^^^^^ Sfr- 

The line, with a few additions in the parenthesis for the sakeof 
clarity, may be read as sRïïIRîf^Rrwf ïf Sfî^çpÇ^^ôïi^fR:: | m\ #% 

In the above discussion, the printed text as given in the éditions 
of V.N. Mandalik {îïïW5T«ïfqî?Mî^) andGaaganath Jha;^ 'ç^^ 
lïïP^) has been emendedto îrg>Rf çTO^Jn^-ônthé Iméof thè *oM 
mm mm\ used in the next stanza (IX, 257). If we, however, retaïn 

1978-1979] MEDHATITHI ON MANU IX, 256 59 

the readings in thc printed éditions, wc sfaaîl hâve to interpret the 
passage as m^^: (or ^mWO ^^^W(J^ (meaning H^^ ^^: cTÇ^P^crt 
5^^R:) ^ srfè^Çqî^q^R: I ^^ ^% etc. 

In the eod il is good to examine thc translation of Ganganath Jha 
of the above passage of Medhâtitbi. His translation runs : 

Though the action of the *open' thîef does not sîand on the 
same footing as that of the "concealed* one - such as those who 
prowl abolit at night, in forests etc.— yet both hâve been men- 
tioned together for the purpose of indicatîng the equality of the 
punishment to be meted out to them " 

This interprétation, however, is not likely. For, apart from the 

fact thatit requires the addition of two crucial words "though yet", 

ît îs well to remember that în the very next verse (IX^ 257) Manu charac- 
terizes both the types as vancaka, Tfaus, according to Manu, the activity 
of the/^r^z/ra^a type is similar to that of the aprakasa type and not diffé- 
rent. Hence Medhâtithî is not likely to say that the action of the one 
*does not stand on the same footing' as that of the other. If the punish- 
ment to be meted out to them is to be equal, their actions hâve to be 
on the same footing and not différent. 


According to soine «cholars, tbe DattakacandrîkS (D. C.)' is a trea- 
tise on adoption written by Kuberabhatta whoflourishcd lometime after 
thc nthCenturyA.D., and before thc end of the 16th Ccntury a.d. 
But this View may not be correct. For, the real author of the trcatise 
D.C. appcars tobc Raghumani. The Jast verse of theD.C. isinter» 
preted by the soholars in such a way as to dérive the name Raghumaçi 
which 18 suppoied to be the name the real author of this treatise.2 
And the long standing controversy regarding the authorship of this 
treatise came to an end. It is also quite likely that Kuberabhatta or 
Kuberapaçdita was a the Paçdjta appointée by Colebrooke and he 
made the literary forgery of thework of Raghumaçi who was quite 
weli known in Bengal.^ 

Raghumani, the author of D.C. bas introduccd some of the 
Mlaïâmsa techûiwal discussions for arriving at the pointed conclusion. 
The eompariiott of Raghumani with Nandapaodita, the author of the 
Dattakamimarnsâ [DM,] is also interesting and instructive. The probable 
date of Nandapandita according to MM. Dr. P.V.Kane is 1595 a.d to 
1630 A.D. In this paper, therefore, an attempt is made to détermine 
the position of d.c, as a close studen t of the Pûrva Mimâmsâ and to 
point ont the inflaenccof Nandapandiita over the writing of Raghumani 

1 . Dattakacandrikâ with thc Marathi Translation, Goveinraent Press, Baroda 

1904.^ .: 

2. Cf. V^ '^^ ^ÇPW^^ftw ^\ 

«^ 'ài^^W snfçnM II 

D.C, last verse The first and the last letters of eachof thc two hemis* 
tichei, joined togethcr makc the name : Kl*!^ . 
3» See P. V. Kane, Hist, of Dharm éâstra^ II Ed, Vol. I, p. 1039; VoL IH, p. 664, 


în resortÎBg to the Ptirva-^Mîmâmsa doctrines for arriving at the pointed 
conclusion. An attempt is also made hère to make theproper compa- 
rîson of our author Raghumam with other writers on Dharmasastra like 
Vijnânesvara and Nîlakaçthaj onîy from the MîmSmsâ point ofvîcw 
and the method of treatment of the topics. 

L The author of the D.C- has employed in the course of his 
discussion about six maxims of the Mîmâmsâ and popular parlance, 
The Kapinjaladhikaranà-nysya (p. 28), Dandapiïpikânyïïya (p. 46), 
Siddhe satyarambhù niyamiïya (p, 68), Vidheyagatam visesanam aviva- 
ksîtam (p. 6),-* Praiîmdhi-nyâya (p. 6) and Apratîsiddham paramaîam 
anumaîam bhavaîî (p. 24) may be noted in this respect i ■ ï r -^ v;^ 

: Whilie dîscussîng the cond|ict o f a maii ivhx> is iînpQtenît jor whosc 
off-sprîng bas dîed, Raghumam quotes the siwf/î of Vrddha Gautama, 
that stipulâtes : *Having giveu a pair of cloth, a pair of ear-rings, a 
turban and a ring for the forc-finger to a priest who is reîigiously 
disposed and who îs a^ devotee of Visnu and is well-vefsed in the Vedas; 
pn^ should adopt a son only after respectîng ihe kîng and virtuoiis 
Brahmins by the Madhuparka ceremony. lo the given ^/MfVHext, Ihe 

'Word dvîjïïn ocçurs and Raghumani, following the priricîpJ.e^.';of 
[Kapînjaladhîkarùna'nyiïya: states'that the wbrd dvijan refefs tô tbê tîaree 

.Brahmins.^ It may be noted hère' that the same view îs ufThëld by 
Nandapandita in his D.M.^ Incidentally it may be added that Nanda- 
pandita bas vîrtuaîîy followed the prînciple of the nyâya thoûgh^he h^^ 
not named it/ This is also fuither clear from the commentary M^ 
on the D.M J The above discussion also helps us to rîghtly înfër that 
Raghumam is infîuenced by the view point of Nandapandita. 

Agaîn whîle dîscussing the rîght of inheritance pf asonbegotten 
by a man of the fourth caste on his female slave or the femalç slaye of 
his maie slave, Raghumani quotes the verse from the Mant4jSfnrtî IX. 
179 and the text of the Yajnavalkya-smrti IL 133 and states that the 
son in question is also entitîed to gct^ lîke any other regular spns, .an 
equal share of hi$ father^s property if the father is aliye and only, half a 
share after the death of the father. The author furîher argues that in 

4% [See below eole 1 l-Ed.} 

5, cf fîçr^t ^m^ ^t4î ^^n =m^#?r^ i 

6. Cf. ^^[^#^=2Tr^îïï^?T3ïï. ïïp^%î ^^5l5f:-i - D.M, p. Î52v ■■--^' 

1978-^1979] THE DATTAK4CANDRIKÂ AND...V. 63 

that case following the prînciple of the Dandâpupika-nyàya it automa- 
tîcally follows that the kseîraja and the daîtaka sons also are entitled 
to the same share.s What Raghumani means to say is that if the sons 
of the feraale slaves are entitled to get the share, then the kseiraja and 
the daîtaka sons^ the better ones, must also get share in the ancestral pro- 
perty. Hère also it may bc noted that Vijnâoesvara and Nîlakantha hâve 
not used this maxim în this context, though it is trne that they bave 
used the same maxim in the other contexts. This helps us to conclude 
:hat Raghumani has also, independently to some extent, touched upon 
some points of the Dharmasastra, left untouched or partly touched by 
his predecessors. 

IL Raghumani quotes the views of the predecessors on some 
technical points and then proceeds further with the réfutation of those 
views without resortîng to the Mîmâmsâ principles, 

This point can be best illustrated by inviting the attention of the 
rcaders to the tcxt of the Manusmrîî IX. 168^ quoted by Raghumani 
in his D.C, Regarding the interprétation of sadrsam occuring in the given 
text of M[aau, Raghumani refers to the view of Medhâtithi who takes 
sadtsamto mean 'equal not by caste but by qaalities in conformity 
to the fàrâîly*. But Raghumani disagrees with Medhâti.thi and states 
that the expression means *equal by caste only/. To support his own 
vîew he quotes Saunaka, Yajnavalkya and Vrddha YajKavalkya and 
points out that the view of Medhâtithi is not supported by the express 
textsof the Dharmasastra. In this context, it will be reasonable to 
point out that the same view is also upheld by the authors of the 
Vyavahâramayûkha and the Viramîtrodaya, Hère also it should be 
noted that for arriving at this conclusion, the Vyavahâramayûkha 
employa the prînciple ot Ûpasamhïïra, aMimarns^ teehnical point and 
quotes the opinion of Klullûkabhattaio in support. One may hâve to 
admit that Raghumani has riot employed the said Mîmâmsi technical 
point, even though hô arrived at the same poînted conclusion. 

IIL We often notice a respectable amount of similarity in the 
Works of the writers on Dharmasastra in employing the Purva-Mïmimsi 
maxims. In this respect, our author stands în the list of the well-known 

^r^* ^%^3f^* ^ i^^fSFff: fcf: H - Manusmrtn IX. 168. 

ÎO, ^CT ^>ÏÏC^% 5^*Hg: - Vyayahârama^îikha, p 10§. 


aulhors îike Nîlakantha, the author of the Vyavahara and other mayukhas 
and Devaççabatta, the author of ihe Smrikandriks. Generally the 
readers of the Dharmasâstra corne across the use of the maxim 
Uddesya - gaimn visescmm avmksUam, But Raghumani bas cmployed 
the priociple vidheyagaiam viksanam avmksiiamJ^ The converse of 
thîs maxim viz. Vidhtyagatam viksmam vivaksitam is employed by 
Nilakanîha in inîerpreîing the itxi of the KmyayanasmrtiP In the 
eiïiploynicnt of the Hetuvat mgadâdhikaram-nyciya^ ont author Raghu- 
maçi rcsembles Devannabhatta a^so who has used the same principlc.^^ 

IV. In avoiding the fault o! Vïïkyabheda, Raghumani stands in 

coîiiparîson to Nîlakantha. Our author combines some apparantly 
coniicting smriis including îhat of Nirada and deduce a -single' 
stipulation and escapes the fault of Vâkyabheda, whîch' ariseswhenin 
a single sentence two injunctions are laid down,^^ In this context it 
may be pointed oui that even the great commentators Iike Vijnânesvara 
and Aparîrka are said to hâve failed to avoid this fault of Vakyabheda 
at limes, .^5' 

¥• In the employmenî of the principle of Upalaksam, Raghumani 
cornes very close to the other writers on the Dharmasâstra Iike 
Kullikabhâtta aod oihers. For while înterpreting the text of the 
Mûfiu,^^ Raghumaç! suggests that the word pw/ra in this ■ text 'is 
iiliîstraiivc^'^ of grandson and great- grandson and does not citeany 
authority in support In this respect it is reasonable to point ont that 
Nandâpandiia in his D.M. has also, interpreted the same word of the 
same texî of Maou by employing the principle but he carefully of 

[In facî ihîs passage seems to convey th^i idea that in the expression a-putrena 
the mascHlîce gender asd the sioguîar number are not intended to be the attri- 
bBttt of %hat is bcing enjoioed; because the adoption and giving away a son by 
more thanoneand by women too are approved expressedly by the Vasistkasmrtù 
D.C quoîesîtiaîiiHfn; Thus there appears to b. no such maxim ^fvfdheya^ 
gaiam viiismam anmksimm - Ed.] 

12 Set ÉaddhimayMkhû, pAE, 

Kl S^^* SmrticmdFikâ, Érâddàakënda, p, 422, 

«imilt. .. Bharatacandrasiromanî's gioss Bâlabodhinï (Clcum Ed, 1807, 

p. 34) m tàis context - Ed.| 

'' !^;«irrtï' Tf ^"'^'^^^ '' "^''^ ^y Nîlakantha iahis Vy^ahara^ 

16 I.C, ÀpMirem suiûk kâryak etc, ,' * • ,. ■ 

1978-1979] „ THE DATTAKACANDRIKA AND •.. «5 

Upalaksana, quotes Manusmrîi IX. 137, în his support. Thus in 
employîrig thîs priiicîple Raghumanî is rather careless^ and hence not 
cîted any proper supporting authorîtyj» 

VI. The prîncîple of the maxim Faramaiam apratîsjdâham anu^ 
matam bhavati has been used by Raghumanî în his D.C. It means that 
îf the opinion of others is not challenged or opposed, then it becomes as 
good as accepted. This principle is used by Raghumanî in interpreting 
the text, of Vaâîstha.^^ He concîudes on the strength of the above 
maxim that approval [anumati) of husband is deemed to hâve been 
obtained if he does not oppose the wife's action of giving away her son 
în adoption.2o It is also interestîng to note that for giving the above 
explanation on the basis of the above quoted maxim, our author further 
quotes, in his support YâjEavalkya. It may also be observed that this 
maxim is put to use by the author of D.M. to show that one can adopt 
a son from the other castes as long as this adoption is not prohibited 
by the express texts.2^ 

VIL Our author also makes use of the Mîmariisâ prîncîple of 
Pratîprasava (i.e., exception tothe exception or exception to the négative 
rule) in interpreting some verses^^ from the Purânas. Thèse verses 
scem to lay down that iî t\kt samskaras upto caula hâve alrendy- been 
performed for a boy by his own fàther, as per his own gotra then he 
does not become the son of the adopter, if he adopts the boy after the 
said samsknra. This is a négative rule. Raghumanî however concîudes 
that the boy becomes his (adopter's) son only if the same samskaras are 
again performed for the boy by the adopter as per his gotra. Thus, our 
author has shov^^n the utility of the text of the Puranas by using the 
principle^s of pratîprasava. 

18. [But corapare/3î^ gsn?^^ ïfl"5r5|^^ cf%^l% iïïo^?î5^f#^Ç«rT- 

f^tqrg; ï BF^î'îîT ^^fir 'fli WZ^'^ W^^^^x^^(^^^vM: of the D.C- with 
Manusmrti gt^^^I^î ^^% >^^R-^TÏ^3i etc. (IX, 137) and the remarks 
of Kullûkabhatta thereuoder. - Ed]. 

21. Cf. 3î5rirf%i:îTW ^^^^ -^^^^^ïx^w^m ^^"mw^m^ d.m, -p. 54- 

^'în.^îTÎ^ ^^^ f^^'Tti^ I Wt: a instead in D.C., p* 41 

5rî5gra,'»-ibid. .;, 
ino— <> 


VÎÏL Like other writers on the Dharma-sâstra, Raghumani also 
refers to some of the vie^ p >int of the well-known Mïmâmsaka 
éibara-.vâmin He refers to ihat author by the expression bhasyakôra^* 
on the point of dvyâmusyâyana. It niay be noted hère that he gives 
only ihi gist and does n 't quote Verbatim the opinion of Sahara. Now 
theaîtcPîion may be ^drawn to the fact that D M. on this context, 
mcn'ioni trename of Sabarasvâiriin and quotes him Verbatim and also 
off-TS a g'os-; on it " From this it is cîear that Raghumaçi is highly 
înUjei.ced 5» Nandapand ta 

IX, Oar author makes use26 of the nysya of the hetuvat 
ni^.îdâlhikaraft3 known from the Pûrva-MimStpsâ 1.2.26-30. On the 
ba is of îh s pnncipie Rjghumani décides the scope of the text^? of 
Vasisî^a that enj< in& that one should noî give the only son of his in 
ad p'ion -énà the receiver also should not adopt from a person having 
on'j one son. The simple reason at the back of this prohibition is that 
the von s sup osed to continue the tradition of the family and the de«d 
ancestor> Su Vas's|ha's smrti is not applicable to the ease of the 
év}Simsian,na ^s Incidentaliy, however, it may be noted that the same 
pnnupici a Si us.d by Devannabhattaelsewhere.29 

X. Unfike Nîiakantha, at tiraes Ragfaumatii avoids the acute 

''îXrahLhtt'h'"',':;'"'"^^ *^^'°^^^^ P°-*^- Nilakanth: 
intraduces a bighiy techmcal ducussion of th e givingofthe staff toihe 

24 Cf. %f %ç=r5ïps!î^._Ibid.^p^ jQ 

25 Cf 5!!r«qTff%cî^îIW^^[imfiT:etc -DM,p.204. 

[It is good to know fuUy the context in wbich fhe' n xt * a , 

The text of the D.M runs : ^ ^^r^Îm^r:^ T ' .'^^^'■^^^^^^'^- 

^m W^ ^m^r^^ .rtom^^g^ ^^^S2 

a^"T#^îînf - ^,1%% etc. D.M. (Calcutta PH *î i, ,o ^^^5^''^- 
m be sure whcther he is identical with ht 1^ ^'^ «^iyasadha. it is difficult 

ff. rmy give risc to a doubt wheVer if ^- f ''1'''"^^^ ^' viii, 35. 36 
SatyEsâdM irautasûtra. Cf. S s/nt.!» -^'^'^'^^ ^abarasvâmin k^ew the 
neirTunes (Delhi. 1977) p. 2^ Ed 3 '■'^^°^° ^ ^^« Vîshnukunais aM 

1978-1979] THE DAtîAKACANDRlKÂ AND ... 67 

priest Maîtrâ And aiso aknowledge of the Mlmâm^'â technical 
tcims - Arthakarma and Praiipatti - karma is absolutely necessary for 
the proper undarstanding of the discussion. On the other hand Ragbu- 
mani does not introduce any such discussion on this important place of 
the Dharmaàâstra Hère il is significant to note that the read^ng of the 
smttP^ adopted by Raghumanî is slightly différent fiom the rtading 
adopted by Nilakantha in his Vyavahara Mayûkha^^. 

XL Casually, however, it may also be noted that Raghumani 
cannot stand comparison with Nandapandita in tbe nnatter of cilmg the 
opinions of the predecessors like Medbàtîthi, VîjEâoesvaia, Sabarasvâ- 
min, Kumârila and others and also m refuting the views of thetn 
whenever occasions sa demand'33 

To conclude^ one wîll hâve to admit that Raghumani has touchcd 
upon though in a small measure, those places of the DharmasSstra^ 
that are left untouched by the predecessors. At times» however, even 
though there is an occasion to introduce the hot discussion on ihc 
Mïmamm technical points, he does not enter into the acute discussions 
on the principles of the Purva-Mimâm â. Though he finds fault with 
the arguments of the predecessors like Medhâtithi, his arguments are 
not always based on the Mîmâmsâ technical points. Though one may 
hâve to admit that the writing of Raghumani is also influenced by the 
opinions and language of Nandapandita, who appears to be more carefui 
in the treatment of the topics, yet, taking into considération the ments 
of the D.C. one is tempted to advance the view that any serious student 
of the Dharmaéâstra and the Purva - MîmSmsâ cannoî ignore Raghu- 
mani and his appréciable position. 

op. cit. p. m. 
31. #î|# 5TlM^^ ^5 f^^t 3^î " B.C. p. 14. 

32« ?ï^^ ^ ^% - Qaoted in the Vyavahâramayukha, p. 110 [ In f act there are 
at least two more readings, viz» ^J^^îÇ^Hs^i^ gcf: etc. adopted Id the D-C, 
(Calcutta Ed, Saka 1807, p* 4) and in the D»Mv (Caletitta Ed. Saka 1807^ 
p. 43)* The iatter authorîty discusses at length the signifîcance of g, and notes 
the existence of another reading "^j^^ ïTlPrî^^" m SJs^T^ HitcT: grT: «^ 

33. See for example D.M., pp. 13,30, 101-03, 214 etc« 



1. Vymhm Mapkha dited by M.M. Dr. P.V. Kane. Bombay 
Sanskrit and Prakrit séries No. LXXX. 1926. 

2. ÈiM4îapkha of Niiakantha publisfaed by the Gujarati 
Printing Press, Bombay, 1941. 

3. Mmlja'NyâjQ-MMsfm-'kmiAm Sanskrit Séries 

4. The Mîmi^M ÂnutmanM with the Mitnîf^sti Mandafiâ by 
MM. Dr. Ganganath Jha. Chowkkînba Sanskrit Séries 

5. He teicû/îMg of Devannàbliatta. J.R. Gharpure 
în the collection of Hindu law texts, Bombay, 1918. 

i Ik Bmûka-Mmm M the commentary Mmjari-km' 
' dashram Sanskrit Séries -No. 116, 1954. 

7. Eîmj ojDkmH'km by MM. Dr. P.V. Kane. Bhandarkar 
Oriental Research Insîitute, Poona -. 1930. 



1. Saôkara astounds us, the extrovert intellectuals. with his subtle 
analysis of the human behaviour, in the prologue of his monumental 
bhSsya on the Brahma Sûtras, under the caption Adhydsa-Bhâsya^ 
Bhagavâa BâdarSyana enunciated the thesis of the Upanisads on the 
nature of the physical world, under the background of a Suprême 
Consciousness, otherwise called Brahman, in relation to the infinité 
centres ofconsciousness, known as Jîvas. This thesis, which theorised 
in 555 epigrams known as Brahma Sûtras, was commented upon by a 
hostof gcârj'û.y, theoutstandingamougthem being àankara, Râmânuja 
and Madhva. Ever since, thèse three great Acâryas had their 
ownfollowers, who had in their turn commented uponthdï bhâsyas, 
It is a pity to note that some of thèse latter commeutators, indulged in 
mutual ridicule, with closed and fanatic mindsy which betray notonly 
their small spiritual stature but also their lackof interest intrying to 
know the Truth of Existence. This mutual redicule continues to this day 
intfae nature ofheatedcontroversies under the garb of sïïslrSrtha, By 
this we are reminded of the Bhartrhari's saying: 

and the weMnown verse 

• » « ♦ ■ ,«•"■«. 

♦ •* * ' ««* f 

2. In this paper we try to understand the mind of Sankara to Which 
we are exposed in his prologue, the spirit of which could be understood 

U he,întToànctïmtoh.isBrahmasûtra''bh3sya. u , 

2, SubMsjtaTriktï mstïio/l (Nîti l^ataka), Ed. V.R. & Sons,, 19S8. 


only by those who are preparcd to rack theîr braÎBs wiîh an open micdi 
înterested in the quest of truth. Sankara beckons us to analyse first 
the fundamental concepts of *You' and *r, It need not be explaîncd 
ihsLt *F stands for the cognîzîng agents the 'conscionsness' or spîrît, and 
that *you' stands for the objective cosmic manifestation. *I' is com- 
pared with lîght, and 'you' wîth darkness, which are mutnaîly and 
totaily opposed. One may contend hère, mîsînterpreting Sankara's 
*you% sayîng : *A person who is addressed is as much imbucd with 
Consciousness as *!'. But when I look npon the world as consistîng 
ofspace and time, men and matter, besides infinité varieties of the 
species of what we call Life, then^ as far as 'I' is concerned, 'Yon' 
is no more than an object of the perception of 'F. It is as good as a pot 
wbich T sees. Hence Sankara categorîsed *you* as darkness, meanîng 
thereby that the manifest world inclnding many a, man^ is îighted by the 
Hgbt of the Consciousness, which is the 'I'. 

3, Sankara alludes to the fact that the 'Riddle of the Universe* 
is that the spirit is caught in the meshes of matter. In other words 
the M' is got engaged în the mortaî coil, by some Divine design, so to 
say, or perhaps by the 'I' falling short of Divinity so as to be imprison ed 
în a prison-dress called the 'body*. There are indeed a host of bîologîcal 
evoîutionists who would argue that the 'spirit' is evolved matter and 
that *matter' is involved spirit. Their arguement also may be appa- 
rently substantiated by pointing ont that 'Life' had evolved ont of a 
burning globe, which ouf Earth was once, Sankara rôles out this 
argument that the *r could ever eyolvc out of *you% by comparing them 
withLight and Darkness. He must faave had at the back of mind the 
Upanisadic sentence : 

^?ï;^ ^«s^r I çrl^îT#^^ 

*God (orbetterto call Him Godhead, to rule out an indivîdu- 
alized God) had entercd into the matter which He had created.* 

4. It îs not out of place to mention hère that PataSjali also 
enuncîates in his Yoga Sûîras that the Purusa or the 'I' has been caught 
în Prakrîî^bandhas or the meshes of matter. In fact Pataïïjali defînes 
Moksa or *Merger with Brahman' as no more than realizîog the distinc- 
tive nature of *I' from ail that is manifest, and tells us „ that this moksa 
is attaînable through a samSdhi or concenlration known by tTie name 
dharma-megha an expression pregnant with meaning*^ No man couid 
eyer escape the cycle of births and deaths, so long as this distinction it 
not realized (not intellectually but by expérience). This merger is 

3. TaUtîrlya, 11-6* 

4. Yo^ûsUtra, IV, 29. 

- 1978-1979] THE METAPHYSICS OF ADVAITA ... 71 

categorized by Pataîijali in the words î^^ ^^^Ff^ meanîng there- 
by that the vagaries of the fugitive mind hâve got to be nullificd ta 
fealize one's Self. 

5. The encaglBg of the Souî înto the koot of the body, which îs 
bound to perish, has been described by ail the âcâryas as a caîamity 
that has overtakcB the 'V or the SouL Really^ I fret and fume as to why 
*I* should be împrisoned iuto a mortal coîl. Was it a fault of *Mîne' for 
having fallen short of Divinity or am 'V subjected by a cruel force callèd 
God, to births and deaths forHis own play? If it wereHis play and no 
fault of Mine, why should 'I' be chosen to be born as a blind beggar, 
whereas some other îs gîven to be born haie and healthy andwitha 
silver spoon in his mouth? Hère cornes the concept oî karma ^ which 
may be verily compared wîth an article of *A Divine Constitution* or a 
spiritual machanics or even a Divine Algebra, which no mortal could 
ever possibly uoderstand. Perhaps, a mortal man could never peep 
into the *Why' of the mysteries of Life and Death, so long as he îs at 
his level of consciousness, his conscîousness being encaged in a perisha- 
ble coil, even as a cat could never be expected to understand our human 
matfaematical algebra even if it îs tutioned for a score of years. In fact 
a poet had desperately excîaimed that he could not unravel the mystery 
of Death, even racking his braîns, and no man, affer dying, did ever 
whisper into his ears the meaning of Death. 

It is quite possible that our Consciousness perceîving the world 
through the médium of the body, sensé organs, mind and intellect is 
fetting refracted, even as a ray of lîght traversing the médium of a glass 
jets refracted and informs us that a pin is there where it is not. Hcre wc 
hâve the Upanisadîc statements 

as well as 

They allude to the concept, that after ail, the world which I see 
before my eyes of flesh is there imbedded in my own Conscîousness and 
unknowîngly I am projecting it out of my Conscîousness and I am looking 
upon ît as if ît cxists outside, just as my mîschîevous mind, trapped in 
adream, créâtes a tiger out of itself, and looks upon it as though it is 

- ■ 5* •■ibidé'I, % ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■"■ ■ 

6» Katha, IV, L 


6. RôvertÎGg to Sankara's aualysîs we hear the Master saying th^t 
the entire humaîi behaviour, be he a great geBÎus or an erudite scholar, îs 
ail based upon the man's false identification of the Soûl with the body. 
When I say 'I am sïck% I am superimposîng the sickness of my body oia 
*Me% the Soûl. ^When the Sastras give an injunction *Speak the truth% 
eycn there, the Sastras are directed to an Ignoramus who is unable to 
dîfiFerectîate body from the Soûl. Evidently speaking the truth does 
not concern the Soûl, Which is there as Sâksîn. Hence rightty, Sankara 

opens our eyes to the fact that even the Sastras are ^f^«lîfî|¥ITf¥ 
i*e., directives for an ^ignoramus^ even îf he be a scholastic. It needs bo 
mention to say that éankara ruîes out the infallibility of the accepted 
/^ramaçii^ like the pratyaksa and the anumana even^simply becausea 
Divine play of Illusion has produced a world before my eyes of flesh 
and what I see wîih my eyes, I unknowingly consture that it is there. 
Even the Western philosopher^ Schopenhaurer maintains the world as no 
more than man's idea. Thîs theory he enunciates in the words 'What I 
know is not a Sun and an Earth, but only an eye that sees a Sun, and a 
jhand that feels an Earth^ and the world whîch surrounds me is there 
only as an idea in relation to something else that is my Conscîousness^ 
He meant to say, just like Saôkara, that the phénoménal world has tvvo 
poles^ theone the knowing Consciousness, and the other the object of 
çognition namely thq world- The master says in so many words that 
the mattcr or Jfij^a is there as a necessary counterpart ofthe dfk that 
sees and therefore mattar has only an empirical reality- 

7. Modem nucîearphysîcs corroborâtes the same idea saying : A 
ta^ble whiçh I see before my eyes is in the ultimate analysis a conglo- 
meralion of électrons and protons whîch constitute forms of energy, 
lacking substance, what we call matter. If I were imbued with a micro- 
cosmîc eye, an eye that could peep înto theinner dynamism of the 
microcosm of atom, I woald no more see a table as a table but just a 
colossal éaergy that is at play. Modern *Th€ory of Relativity' too 
dîscloses that aîl matter îs bottîed energy^ so to say, that this world of 
matter is caught under an interplay of Space and Time which constitute 
a subtle blend called the Space->Tim#Contiî5Uum. Many a Western 
philosopher, for example Bradley, subscribes to the îdea that both 
Space and Time are unreal, The same was long before voiced by éan^ 
^kataJn• the-words'' '.''■■■■■':.■■■■■:;■■ : 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ 

Einstein ascribes a curvature to space, which contradicts âïl 
commonsensej if not revolting to it. Even in modem analytical geo- 

9* Bûksimtmrtyûsîaka^ verse 2, Pracyavidya Samsodhanalaya» Mysore 1972* 

1 978-1979] THE METAPHYSICS OF ADVAITA ... 73 

metry, two appareatly distinct branches of a hyperbola are seen t© 
insply a contmmty of 'plus infinity' with 'minus infinity' (Refer : While 

increases contînnously for o to cos*"^ — and transcends the value 

cos~^ — ,the upper branch of the right hand sîde hyperbola seems to hâve 


a continuity with the lower branch of the left-hand side of the cnrve in 
the infinités of space. Of course, mathematicians in their rational 
humbleness were formerly saying that there is an infinité discontinuity. 
But in the wake of Einstein's postulation of a curvature they will hâve 
probably to revise their notion. In fact there couid be no straight line 
nor a plane extending into infinités uncurved, even as no straight line 
could be drawn on the spherical surface of the earth)» 

8. Our eye, whose veracîty is boasted upon as 5(^^5rq'[ox by logi* 
cians or the Naiyayikas miserably fails in construîng that a stick is 
broken at the point where it cuts the surface ofwater, When thus our 
sensés are found to mîsîead us, why not we stop for a moment to muse 
that perhaps ail our sensés are conspiringly producîng before our eyes^» 
the picture of world, which is perhaps imbsdded in our own conscious- 
ness? ' '.. 

9. The subtîe blend of the space-time continuum revealing to lis 
that what we cognise as space and what we cognise as time apparently 
are having nothing to do with space, and making us feel that gods' space 
is really the space-time continum wherein only, Maxwell's Electro- 
magnetic Equations ho Id good;and the subtle blend of the body and 
soûl, which cannot but act conjointly, may very well be compared with 
the complex-variable jç-f ïJ, the analysis of which reveals to us many a 
theorem which could not be discovered otherwise, had we postulated 
only a real variable. Mathematicians hâve profitably entered into 
commerce with the "i* i,e, V^T^which does not exist under the sun for the 
laity. Ultimately, it seems as though the moorings of the apparent 
world lie in the depths of the metaphysical, which is a sealed book unto 
our mortaleyes. How could we otherwise argue in mathematics that 
a humble circle, circumscrîbed in the finitude of the plane passes 
through two imsiginary points called the *Circular points at Infinity'? 
And behold ! This is hard irréfutable mathematics î Veda says, and 
that is verîly the fact : 

qi^sçT fq^ ^T^ f^qTa[^'ït l^f^^^ 

The above passage tells us that the totalîty of the cosmos is but 
an iota of the Godhead Which lies beyond the peep of mortal men. In 

10, iî^vcdta X, 90, 3» 


other words the raetaphysical seems to be really the Truth. Kâiidâsa 

to.» î»ays : 

9(w^^^S^%h Raghu, ym, S7. 

Whdt the poet wants to convey is this : 'The Life hère before and 
bercaft r constitutes our real Life whercas what we call life is but a 
disiortion' No genius faowever great, could know from what bosom of 
Space and Time are we born into this cosmic picture, ajad whfsreunto we 
sink ugain. The greatest of menis no more than *A child crying in the 
night, a child crying for Light, by no more than a cry'. We hâve got 
inevitaWy to cooclude th are fore witb the saying. 

"The univcrse is ail the play of a Divine jugglcry; and the 
apparent difiTerence between the Jîva and the Brahman is illusory. The 
DivÎQC !S the only Reality". 

10. Thcrealist wiU oerhaps laugh in sleeves, when it is declared 
that ihe wnrld is a!l wrought by illusion. It must be noted that there 
areahostofphilo^ophersofthe West who too spoke in similar terms. 
Berk.ley for ex.mple, says that the external world has no metaphysical 
mov d^nct nf roi' T f'^^'^'^^^^^l manifestation and is keyed to the 

ht H^ ' ^ T w '"'' ^^''°^ ""^ ^«bieving just like the spacemen that 

IndeedthelawofgrlvhydoJsIofceatr^^^^^^^^^^ convictions, 

lady dues not bel.eve in U. * '""^'^ *'^*'^"^^ ^" «Id 

and ,r "jrdite'to ^^''é^:^^^' ''''''^ *^^^- ^«^— -^ùn... 
wppl.cadon lo the SupreL DivinlTn?; "^^'^^y ^^'^^ their hands in 
dr.vcn cattic undcr the Lcîof a c'therdf '"*"''' ^'''"''' "'^ ^""^"^ 

prof. S,S, BARUNGAY 


As one thinks about the 'Concept of Freedom' one reaîizes that 
although the Word, 'freedom* isused in laoguage as a substantive, it 
semantically behaves in a very différent way from the stardard substan- 
tives like, 'cow*, 'table', 'chair' etc. Although so me ti mes we use 
expressions like 'A's freedom', or 'B's freedcm', or even a^Ic tbe ques- 
tion, 'Whatis freedom?* the latter question cannotbc answered in a 

straight forward way, by sàying that 'freedom is ..... 'or'" 

is freedom'. Pcrïiaps the more important question tbat the Concept of 
Freedom, invokesis'whatisïttobefrce'. And whatever may bethè 
answer given to this question, the suggestion underlying such a question 
appears to bethat it is 'someone' who is or has to be free. It requires 
a référence to à sentient being and perhaps it may be more significantly 
used in the context bf human world. The mapping of the concept 
demands the sentient and perhaps even the human world. Thus one can 
say that A is a free man and, can also ask the question whether a cow 
oradog or any other animal can be free. But it m<y perhaps be 
meaningless to àsk the question whether a stone or a mountain is free. 
One can, of course, say that thîs land is free; there is free atmosphère in 
England; or he gets free food. But thèse are secondary uses of the 
Word and are riot very important for our présent investigation. In the 
strict sensé of the term it is neither the land nor the food or atmosphère 
which is free. Wfaen we say the land is free we mean that it is not 
occupied by 'anyone'; when we say there is free atmosphère, we mean 
that 'no one' is '"coerced* by 'anyone*; when we talk of 'free food*, 
what is meant is that no money is to be paid for it in return 

In ail such cases there is a covert or overt référence to beii gs, 
to men. One might even ask if it is possible to be free withtut bemg 
aware of it. To me it appears that 'free' behaves ipore like 'plea-^urç' 
or 'pain' than'thelike 'table' or 'chair'. It is, for exampe, possible 
for me to distinguish betwecn the table and knowiedge of the table. 


Possibly a table may exist 'apart from my knowing' it. But unlike this, it 
does not appear to be the case that (my) pleasure or pain may exist 
apart from my knowing it. It aîso does not seeni possible for me to be 
freewithout being aware that I am free. Of course, it is possible to 
think that a man in a free country may not know that he is free. And 
aphiîosophy like Advaita may also assert that man is in fact, free or 
mukta, but on accounî of his 'ignorance' he does not know that he is 
free or imkta. Such expressions, however, do not prove that it is pos- 
sible to be free without being aware of the samc. They primariJy stress 
that man has the potentiaîity to be free. That is he can be aware, as 
and when he wants, ofthefact that he is free. In other settings the 
question whether man is free does not arise. But that does not mean 
that he is not free. It means that the concept of freedom is epistemic 
m character and beîongs to the anthropo-centric world. It also means 
that we use the word, 'freedom' as a tendency word. 

It may bepointed out hère that usnally we consider 'freedom' in 
tûecontextof man's faehaviour and thus it is common to consider it 
Butasanaciivityorbehaviour ■freedom' is also expressed in the form 
Of an adjecnve or an adverb (which is always associated with the verb 
to be] as m the phrase, 'to be free' or even in the form of a verb as in 
or'"ol"':rrrV ,^"*-^^-P--- -^-re aprepo:itLn«to' 

hâve been activa, to desty A ' f^eTdl*"' ''T *''* ^ ^*^'^^ ^^^^«^ 
sensé that we us'e sentent' Hke^A count^: TfTT '' " *"" *^^^ 
'A seat is free». " Free from "7 aT ^ thî! "" ^''^^'^^^^^^^ 
unoccupied, vacant etc. and o v^c « • -, '^°'^ '* ^^an" 
passive State, though I a^ llL'Z the pta ! '/'' f*"" '' ^ 
nsed to coavey an active State also as tn th! ^ f ^'^^ ^^O"»' can be 
préjudice'. 'Free from', thus nril?/ "°*'°'' '^ ^^ ^^^ from 
relation of'northof or 'southof^aTi; /h ^'^^' ^ "^^^'^ °'^***>» °f « 
south of Darwin'. There is, however a 2ifr''°*'°"' "^''^^ '« *« the 
tion expressed by the phrase 'south of IT/IT^' ^^^'^^^^ *h'= '^^^' 
Both the terms of the relation 'south of «1 ?' ^^'^'' '^''^ ^'O^'- 

- ■ T_f ^« «Jso static, whereas the 

î. Tlî ère are of Cour <?«? nfK«« . —•'—.-., „..^ : 

•free-. ^'''' °^^« P^P^sations like. «for-, 'of, etc wh I,"" ■.'■: 


term 'B' in the sentence *A' is free from 'B' has a potentîality to be 

However, I feel that the pîirase "free from" does not express the 
basic sensé of the word *'free". For, when it is said that '*A is free 
fromB" what is intended lobe described is some 'positive state of A' 
And exactiy this is mîssed. This notion is expressed by the phrase 
*'free to". I am free to do X" means that my activity can flow the way 
Ilike in the direction of X, there beingno obstniction from any body 
or any thing, The phrase *'free to'% thus, conveys the more important 
aspect of the notion of the freedom. 

Still, I fecl, that the notion of freedom conveys something even 
more fundamentai than is conveyed by the phrase"*free îo*\ The phrase 
-free to" indicates (1) that freedom is essentially an activity, and (2) that 
it is a relation between the Agent and Something Else. However, both 
thèse prépositions seem to be true onîy within some liniits. In the first 
place "frtedom" in its primary sensé is a mode (i.e. an inhérent character) 
of the self or agent, ^^gain, though *'freedom" is conceived as an acti- 
vity, which indeed it is, (as when a man makes free choîce) the impli- 
cation of the phrase '*freedom as an activity'* deserves careful atten- 
tion. It is an activity in the same sensé ''Being" or **Exîstîng" is an 
activity. It seems to be an activity v^hich is pre-snpposed by activities 
and non-activities alike. 

Let me make my point clear. Assuming that ''freedom" is essen- 
tially an activity, is it correct to say that a man is free only when he is 
doing something, some *free- activity ? That is when he is not doing 
anything will it be necessary to say that he is not a free man. Is it a 
contradiction to say that a free man is idle or sleeping ? In other words, 
is freedom co-extensive only with the dynamic partof Man's perso- 
nality? I am afraid this cannot be so. This kindof description of 
freedom will suggest that a man cannot ha ve^an intégrât ed personality. 
And a négation of întegrated personality is, indeed, a négation of free- 
dom. In fact, 'ïreedom'* onght to hâve a référence to the total perso- 
nality of man in ail its aspects. 

Perhaps it maybeobjected that the "agent" i^^^ver non-active. 
Even when he is sleeping, he may still be **activ€:*'. It is for this reason 

2. It will be înteresting to recall hère the dialogue betv/eeiî Gandhi and the 
American Journalist, Louis Fisher. When asked bis opinion about the tradi- 
tional four freedoms, llke the freedom of the press etc., Gandhi repîied they 
are ail important indeed, but freedom to be free is pre*supposect by ail of them. 
It should be noted that the word *'free'V in the expression **freedom'* ta be 
"free", points to the non-relational use of the word and dénotes that freedom 
is an attribute or a mode of the self» 


tbat afterwards he may say that he had a good sîeep. This may bs so. 
Bot the point is that thîs is not an activity m the ordinary sensé of the 
term. ''Sleeping''^ may pre-soppose an active state of the agent, ef 
whîch the state of sleep is a part. And freedom, indeed, is coneerned 
with sucli an activity. But snch an activity-since it is pre-supposed 
by every activity and non-activity alike-is not an activity in the 
common acceptation of the form and is the very essence of the doer or 
the agent. Such an activity does not point to any relation, bot is the 
personaîity itself, This œeans îhat there mnst be a ose of the word 
*'free*' without any préposition "to* attached to ît. A free man can be 
simply free, even when he is doing nothing, even when he is at rest. î 
suppose thîs îs the most important sensé of freedom and it is pre-sup*' 
posed when we use the phrase *'free from'' and *'free to'\ When 
a human beîng is io contact with the environ ment, hîs personaîity, and 
so also his freedom;is more or îess checked by the environment. It is the 
limitation or possibîlity of freedom thatis expressed by the phrases 
*'free from'* and ^^freeto'*, 

The real significance of the concept of freedom shouîd now be 
cîear. It is not brought ont just by saying that it is an anthropocentrîc 
notion, or that by freedom we mean man's freedom. The notion has to 
be explained farther. Consider, for exanipîe, a case that aman is 
imprisoned against his wilL Does he cease to be free? Can the phy- 
sical force from a physically stronger man deprive another man, with a 
stronger will, of his freedom? Does a martyr who dies for his nation 
(or for his cause) lose his freedom ? The body of a man may act lîke 
any other pièce of matter. But certainly body as soch has nothing to do 
with freedom» Without suggesting in any way a 'ghost in the machine*, 
I shouîd say that the concept of freedom belongs to a deeper level îhan 
that of the body. Thîs îs the problera which is relevant neither to the 
body nor to the mind but tô the individual as a whoie and the concept 
of individual is altogelher a différent level concept and différent from 
the concept of either body or mind. The same notion is sîgnifîed by the 
Word agent, It is not necessary to attribute ontological existence to 
the agent. But **freed6m'' in its fundameiital sensé is a mode of this 
agent. Freedom is a primary presupposition of aîl actions. 

Let us corne back agaîn to the question : what is it to be free ? 
ï think the minimum that we shouîd understand by this question is the 
followîhg : Given a certain situation one shouîd beabîe to choosc 
A rather than B or CV This capacity to choose constîtutes one's 
*freedom'.3 The possibility of Man's desirîng something he *Iikes*3 

3. It may be said that this is ^freedom to\ï may say that açtualchoosing is 

'freedom to' but the *capaclty' to choose is the 'freedom itself presupposed by 
,: the- actual cases of choosing* ■■ , 

1978-1979] ' THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM 79 

thiîîkîng of seTeral alternatives and chcosîog one of them makes hîm 
*free'. It means that man's freedom îs déterminée by map hîmselfby 
■man's likes and dîslikes,by his desires, thinking and volition* Thèse 
cases may be contrasted with those belonging, for example, to perce- 
ptual situation, where freedom is not operative. There îs littîe freedom, 
when someone percaives. Hère man only receives something. Hîs is 
controlled by objective situations which do not make hîm free, Percei- 
ying îs determined by the object (of perception) unlike wishes, desires, 
will and action which are indicative of man's freedom. A clarification, 
Jîowever, is necessary hère. Man's wishes and désires can also be 
controlled by certain situations. They may, for example, be instinctive; 
they may be determined by primitive motivations. Snch things indeed 
cannot be regarded as free acts and cannot constitute freedom, A man 
may do something unawares or he may do something with the avi^areness 
of what he does. It is the second situation which is indicative of 
freedom. But this means that awareness cannot be segregated from 
man's (en joyment of) freedom. It is bis awareness which sustaîns his 
freedom. Unîess man is sèlf-«conscioiis of what he wants or wishes or 
willshe cannot be free. It then means that only those actions or 
desires or wants or wishes of which he is or can be aware as a part of 
his self can be free, It may however, be necessary to point ont that not 
always do we use the word awareness in this sensé. We sometimes use 
the Word *aware' in the sensé of reporting. Y/hen I say I am aware that 
Mr. Philip is hère, I am aware that he is hère but I hava not controlled 
either his being or not being hère. Such a bare cognition would be one 
more addition to the list of events if reporting is regarded as an event. 
I think awareness is of two types at least. One is concerned with 
choosing, selecting, preferring etc., the other is concerned wîth reporting 
or recording, The distinction does not seem to be watcr tight but the 
distinction wiil hâve to be kept in mind although even while reporting 
some kînd of evaluating preferring etc. might take place. When one 
talks of man's freedom one is not concerned with appetîtes^-biological 
appetites w^hich are not free and which may arise in man from time to 
time; but one is concerned wîth some kind of (free) sélection of which 
the agent îs the author. Thus the area of man's freedom is buîlt into 
man's 'conscioos' desires, wishes and actions which are simultaneously 
subjected to some kind of évaluation or préférence. 

Let me enumerate a few instances where man's freedom is at 
work» I think îhe first such apparently supexfecial instance îs that of 
naming. A child is born and is named on the 12 th day, so that the 
name can be used for indicating the child, for taîking about the child. 
But there is no relation between the pâme and the child and in fact, 
.'becaose tbere is no relation between the name and the child. The 
child usually does not exhibit it's freedom to reject the name given to it 


but identifies itself with the aame. Neverthless thename is not identical 
wjîh îhe chi'd. The name can be used to refer to the bearer even aftcr 
the be,;rer is dead. It means that the person who gives the name and the 
persor.s who use the name hâve a freedom eitlier to name or to use the 
name, althoagh it may also be granted that thèse names may be *dcter- 
rainsJ' ac.'Driing ro the cultaral pattern of the society and according to 
îliî ssx etc., of the chi;d. To describe the part of freedom in such situa- 
lions dalermined sometimes, we say names are conventionally given. 
Some p2op!e may even say they are by God's désire. But whether it is ■ 
raan'i désire or the désire of God it is plain that some freedom is 
cperâîivj. It is. of course, true that even in such cases our 
dcîirss may be unconsciously deterœined or even conciously deter- 
niined by the circumstances. But some élément of freedom is 
dcfiriiely operative hère. I am not sure whether this will necessarily 
be îhe case when I blindly want soracthing. It may, of course, be said 
that Ahcn ï désire something, the object of désire détermines my act of 
des fins. But I would put what I want to say into négative manner. 
Take such sentences as 'I do not want this', 'I do not désire this' as 
ag.mst f want this' or «I désire this'. The négative sentences clearly 
ind:cate my freedom at least at the surface leveL And to say that there 
!s .am.» îre.dom ai surface levei is to admit that there is freedom. 

h. TZ'iTI ''" "'' f ' ^""'^ '^'''''' ^"^° ^" ^^' '^«"text of know- 
;; i r . ! ''" *' ^"^^' (^^ ^''' ^" philosophical investiga- 

« cL^-tri^re'thtf^r^VF"^' ""'''' ""'^''^^''^ 
ThereisaflowritHr ^"^ ''* '°°'^ élément of freedom.) 

pot eIsZ'Ï ' """' "^^ '''' ^'' °P«" ^°d I ,ee the flower- 

Z, Alt? u:f;crc~us1f;i^^^ a.y part ^ this percep. 

consciously refuse to see the flow r ToT' r''^'' ""' ''''' '"'^ ' ^^^^ 
inattentive.andthenperhapsiSmrtwVr'. '"T'""' ' '''' ^^ 
flower -pot. But in the ba? pe^cen ion 15 .h ^^^ ^° '^''"' *° '"' '^^ 
dément of désire Althou.h in n T *^' flower-pot there is no 

flo-:.po, ,Mch deteSn s L; Xl7::'V' ''''' ""' °^^- '' ^^ '^- 
thu pcrceptual situation from a sTaln !'. ""^ ^'* *" ^° distinguish 
Pl*> s a part in knowing A se n ^f ''^"' '"^' '' '^"^'"^^^^ «^««"^ 
nature of the universe There eem. tl° k"'""/^' """^'^ '° ^^"«^ '^^ 
between ihe perceptuaj sitoation ZTJ. ^ fondamental différence 

to tackle. In so far s the s^nt st if f *'"" '^'"''^ ' ^^^^°ti«t ^ants 
t^at fce wants to discovertte^min^^^^ T' '^ ^'''''''' *^^ °bject 
;^bmIdahypothesis; he ha TtL ^^^^^^^^^^ He has for example, 
tben means that in the investisat nllt ° P'°' ^"*^ «^ons etc. It 

'^^'ofchoos^ngorpreferringrs^ ::fone'^^^^ ""- 

agamst one, of being controlled by the 

1978--1979] ■ THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM ■■ ' f| 

object. Thinking aiso îs governed by preferrîng and rcjectîngand îs 
controlled by agent and not by object. It is the décision of the agent» 
It is this act on the part of agent which is absent in ordinary perception 
but which cannot be absent when aman is thinking abont the universc 
as a whole. Perhaps when one thinks of indeterminate world one's 
thinking may hâve no scope. Perhaps in snch cases one mcrely takes 
for granted that there is world which exist independently of oneself/ 
But man's désire to know something is determined not by the object but 
by himself. Frt edom is pnrusatûntraJ It is to be located în thevery 
nature of the agent, It may be pointed ont that I hâve descrîbcd situa» 
tions where the concept of freedom is operative but hâve not deiîned it, 
The reason perhaps is that in a sensé it is difficult to define it, This îs 
for two différent reasons. In the first plane ''freedom" appcars to b« 
a notion which does not allow any further anaîysis. Only how it is uscd 
can be pointed out. But again the word ''freedom" is so vaguely used 
(e.g. when it is said that real freedom is realised în socialism) that evcn 
when ît is intendsd to describe situations where "freedom'' is operative 
it only represents a family of similar notions. In this sensé ît is not a 
single concept* It is a name given to a number of mutually dépendent 
concepts which hâve a range from the individuaî to society,^ 

I hâve stated above that freedom is sometimes rcfardcd ai 
absence ofbondage. But this should not lead us to the conclusioii 
that "freedom- îs not a positive concept. Freedom, în fact, should bc 
natural to an individuaî; it is only the bondage which should be îts 
négation or limitation. This limitation becomes operative when um 
individuaî cornes in contact witb the external world^ includîng othcf 
îndividuals. This contact leads to the notion that freedom is the 
négation of bondage. Since bondage is the limitation or négation of 
freedom, it should be possible logically to describe freedom as th^ 
négation of bondage. But what is neçessary ta understand is that 
freedom is essentially freedom and not simpîy a négation of bondage as 
the linguistic description should, also^ be remembered, 
that as soon as the concept of freedom is extended beyond the individuaî 
self and applîed to society the activSty and the relational a^peet of 
freedom becomes more significant. And in such a case freedoira and 
bondage do not negate each other but, as will be seen later^ becoma 

4. Some such hypothesis must hâve induced éaàkarlcârya to say that knowledge 
is determined by the object of knowledge {BmhmasTétmBhïïsyct)* I, î, 4)* 

5. TMs, é^sixinz^zxïïs not vastuîantrai itispmusata^^^ 

6. How the concept is used in regard to the society and- whaf îts sifaiôcaacç îs 
: we shall/seelater..,, / ,; . 

.■109— 11;' ■■:'■■ 


The formulation of the concept of freedom in terms of bondage 
ha. however , t. own values. Logically "bondage" can be expressed as 
.4n-f.eedom" enà "freedom" as "non-bondage". The proposition 
••A i free «rom B" h thus, expressible in the form A is not bouiicJ 
bv B" "A is not free" means that "A is hound" of course, by some- 
thîng' Simi!.rl> "A is free to do X" is équivalent to saying that A i» 
not bound rbv something eise) not to do X. Thèse logical formulations 
giveaveryinip-rtani truthabout the concept of "freedom". "Some— 
oneorsomeîhingisnot free-' means that it is controlled by something 
orsomconc OTHER THaNONESELF.7 This suggests that IF ONE 
ÏS FREE one i^ controlled by oneself, uneontrollcd by oneself being 
équivalent (though iooseJy) to controlled by others. 

The truih, that freedom means CONTROL FROM WITHIN or 
self-deicrmination is very important in one more way. ït points lo the 
fact that FREEDOM is not opposed to the laws of mechanics or 
dialectics. It points out that free action does not mean an action 
tJnsuhjected to the law of causality. A free man, say A, does something, 
say X which h a free activity. In as much as the activity X is control- 
led hy A, it is indeed subjected to the law of causality. One can 
csrtainîysay thaï X is caused by A or X is the effcct or productof A. 
If one is not abie to say this, in respect of A and X then neither would 
A be, nor A'sactivityS What makes A's activity X, a free activity is 
this : thcre is always a possibility for A not to do X but do something 
ELSE, say, XI or X2 or X3 ... . Xn. If A does and it is a free acti- 
vity. then A cpntrols X. On the other hand, if A's activity is not free, 
it îneans that A cannot do anything cxcept X. It is the activity X which 
Controls A and so A is net free, his freedom is taken away and hc has no 
choice. That the agent should not be controlled from wîthnut by the 
•clivity and that he shouJd hâve a choice of action are the two most 
important aspects of the concept of freedom. 

_ Itis often thought by some philosophers that the concept of 
freedow is non-compatible with tûelaws of dialectics. It should be 
HHMie clcar that ihis is just a misunderstanding. If the agent or cause 
tTJZaZ IJ "f '"'"' ^''*='^°™ ^'°°* destroyed. Freedom is negated 
rhchttoit'?"'°°"°''i'^''^'^^'- Itistr^e that the form in 
™ J , J ^ of opposites and the négation of négation are presented 
errâtes the impression that events are determined in sucb a way that 

h^nmmdSlnUnà^Lrlut! ^"^^ Per;onality of man can atanytîme 
impulsa, wSeîJnd d^re.!?. h'''°°'^''^ ''''^^^' ^""'^'^ respect man's 

«. »»"«"'^h.tthecanceptoffreedo,nwouWnotapplytoAandX. 


there is no choice left - an event *XV necessarily becomes îts contra- 
dictory, *Not-X'. But h should be remembeied that Not-X is a formai 
notion. There can never be an event like Not-X, The events can only- 
be W, X, Y. Z and so on. And W, Y, Z etc., are contraries (or rather 
sub-contraries) of X and not the contradictories Ihus wheiher X 
changes into W, Y or Z, it does not affect thc laws of dialectics, W, Y-^ 
and Zequally being the contraries or sub-contranes of X. 


It wonld be interestîng to see what ancient Indian thînkers thjnlc' 
of freedom. True that io modem times the awareness of this problem 
in Indian context has arisen on account of the influence of the West. 
But the roots of the concept are found în the systematic Indian Philo- 
sophy. According to Indian Philosophy of almost every origin 
"freedom'' is a foundatîonal concept, "To be free'' is the goal of 
human beîngs. Freedom is thereforc conceived as a value. Neverthe- 
less it should be contrasted wîth other value-concepts like **happiiiess'V 
as commonly understood. Freedom is not somethîng that "ought*V to 
be achieved, it is not something which is not theie previously and which 
ought to be brought into existence afterwards. ^Treedom*' is aJî^o tbe 
very essence of **being*\ ' 'Freedom'* is inséparable from ''being'*. It 
is usually thought that the agent is always free. It is only ignorance 
that makes the agent think that he is bound and not free. The probjvm 
of freedom in this aspect, isaccepted as '*value" there îs no attempi to 
deducelogically ''freedom'* as value from its ontological or essential 
aspect. In the bierarchy of value **freedom'* occupies a higher place 
than ''happiness''. Happiness would cease to be happiness il freed m 
is eliminated from it. Th us "freedom" is a value because no recognised. 
value can be a value if it is segregated from "freedom**/ It is for the 
reason that freedom is even looked upon as the hîgbe&t happiness or 
bliss. It will, however, be înterestîng to know that Indian PhiîoKply 
particularly of Advaîtic origin considéra the concept of freedom at two 
différent levels, (1) the individual levé! and (2) the world-level. In a 
sensé an individual is, of course, regarded free at both the levels But 
at the first level he is the "maker** of his own destiny He is "re.spon* 
sible'* for every willful or voluntary act of his and he has a choice to 
take any course of action. But a really free man aîso réalises that he is 
not différent from the Realîty; the concept of otherness is only illusory 
and his relations with the worldly things like tables, chairs or mone y and 
property etc., are "phénoménal** of *ephemeral'. In fact he rt alises 
that the so-called ^Values* are signifîcant only in the hun am w<rld 
"Names**and "Forms" hâve îndeed no significance in the world th< t 
exists in its own right. A freedom*s freedom then ultimately *'blinds'* 
him to be Reality Itself, and hence his egoistic sclfish character discards / 


the concept of proprîety whîch binds him to the world of appearance 
and finally wîthcîs away in tfae 'Uitimate Reality' or Brahman as it is 
callcd by the Indian tbînkers. 

Let me explain the point further : Man^s desîre to know is 
sometimes conoected with man's desîre to be free or mukta. But the 
ability to know which contains the élément of freedom is to be distin- 
guished from hîs désire to be free. The désire to be free may culminate 
în becoming free, mukta, or one is with the universe. This is how it 
should be possible to distingiiish between moksa where freedom is 
attamed and mumuksE where semé kind of conscious désire indicative 
of man*s freedom is hinted at. Sometimes moksa is eqnated with 
frtcdom. But moksa^ m fact, restrîcts man's freedom in as much as it 
isdissolutîon of his personality. In my désire to be free there is a désire 
for ideiitifying myself with the cosmos^ with the reality. But the 
realmtion has still not corne. So the state points to my ability, 
my freedom to choose. It only indicates my ability (my freedom) 
to know the limitation thatlcannot hâve my independent existance 
and ininitum. It Is this feeling which makes one surrender 
to the universe. It is the intense désire to break one's identity^ to get 
rid of the aliénation that causes one's independent existance, and gave 
one an independent identity, It is, thus, a question of negatîng one's 
îdentîty. It îs a case of suicide. A man who does not want to live has 
ability tokillhimself but once this ability isutilized his ability to kill 
himself and ability to exist corne to end. Simulteneousiy Individual 
idcntity cornes into existence on account of aliénation from reality. 
Aliénation from this aliénation makes a man mukîa, makes him one 
with the reality. In this respect freedom of mnktî must be distinguished 
from freedom to. be free and freedom to know. Freedom to be free 
when attained negates the ordînary concept of freedom altogether. 
When a man cornes into being he is ail long trying to be diflferent from 
the world, hc has become a second world. When he becomes mukta it 
is on account of his understanding that he cannot be différent from the 
world ail the tîme; ît is defying aliénation which has made him seperate. 
Freedom in the sensé of muktî then is complète annihilation of Man's 
individuality. It îs not freedom; it is freedom from being bound to a 
particuiar otganizatîon called man. 

Inwhatdoes constitute this organization ? The first answer îs 
that it îs a whole governed body. This is certainly true. But the body 
givesonly the geographical boundary to the organism. As a matter of 
fact we do not significantly use the word freedom in regard to a stône 
for «ample. We do not say that a stone is free, It means that the 
body mmt hâve some consciousness by whîch it is distinguishrable from 
things likc stone. It is this which though a product and function of a 
body controls the body* It is because of this that it is sometimes called 


JîvaoT lîfe. But thereîs a diflFerence between beîng alive and knowîBg 
that one îs alive. Knowing that one is alive îs a further product or 
fuBction of the body and consciousness or Jîva and may be called self- 
consciousness. Every livîng thîng or beicg may not be so conscious. 
But it îs the self which controls the organism. It gives freedom to the 
organism to choose and to act as if ît is an independeat world. It is 
theself-coûsciousness which gives identity to the organism,^ 

It is a functîon of the organism. But the strangest thiog îs that 
ît is this fuoction which gives the body the identity. Uafortunateiy the 
Eagiish Word self-consciousness or awareness gives an impression that 
it is an abstract notion. It must be realîsed that an abstraet notion 
cannot control an organism. *Self--consciousness' is a living élément, 
though it is definitely dépendent on the body and also on the conscious- 
ness. It is this elementwhichgivesîhe organism (theman) the freedom to 
act, the freedom to choose, the freedom to désire. Freedom appears to 
be the very nature of this functîon. This freedom naturally exists so 
long as the organism exists as an îndependent world by itself. When 
the organism breaks this functîon also ceascs, but before such thing 
happens it is capable of taking a décision to wither away in a bigger 
whole. What wecall freedom or moksa is a limitation of this freedom 
which makes man an îndependent world, an îndependent monad. 

If we accept the monistic hypothesis that the world, the cosmos, 
is one and is governed in some systematic manner then the parts of this 
whole cannot and should not be independent. The independence or 
freedom of parts can be allowed only so far as it is not inconsistent 
with the nature of the whole. If this whole is voluntarily governed 
from within and is not mechanical, one may say that the whole is free, 
the whole enjoys freedom, though this may be only our pious hope. 
It is possible that the whole is only mechanicaL But whether it îs 
mechanical or voluntary if parts of the whole act independently and 
are not subjected to the law of the whole, ihe world as a whole, would 
sufifer from paralysis. One cannot conceive of a whole and at the same 
tîme think that parts are independent. A man, e.g., cannot act as a 
man if hîs hands and feet and ears and eyes behave in a discord and 
are not subjected to one ''command'** When in the world the pheno- 
menon of self-consciousness arises, that is when, for example, the 
self-conscious man is on the scène he begins to behave as an indepen- 
dent world, It îsbeginningof paralysis for the world if actions due to 
his voluntary behaviour continue for a long time without there beîng 
any linkbetween the world, which is the substfatum for his existence, 
andhîmself. The cosmos in such a case would not heabletoarrest or 

9* It is this self-^identity which should hç regatûtû as Aiman» 


coûtrol ffian's actions. Man's freedom în a way is siich a challenge. 
It is a kind of a *paralysis' of the cosmos and k is onîy the growth and 
decay of the body whîch makeshim îhink of surreoder to the cosmos. 
Moksa of Advaita concept is Treedoro* from man^s ordînary concept of 
freedom which cao be compared with paraîysis of the cosmos. It is 
limitation of his freedom, limitations of his independent existence, 
cessation of his identity, withering away of his person, tealization that 
a man does not exist any more. It is reaîization that Itman does not 
exist any more that is expressed in language that it becomes one with 
the universe. Freedom is a human, individiial notion. Whcther 
sîmilar notion can be attributed to the whole, the cosmos^ the Brahman 
is a question. 


In récent times the concept of freedom has also been nsed in the 
context of society. What should be meant by freedom of society? 
Can a Society befree? Ifitcan, in what sensé can it be free? It 
appears to me that freedom or freeactivîty becomes fnlly significant 
în the context of organic Unîty or totality conceived as Unity. Totality 
cannot be conceived as Unity unless the parts in totality are inter-con- 
nected organically. In the strict sensé of ihe term, I do not think it pos- 
sible to conceive a soceity as an organic Unity, a miniature world, 
although loosely it is so conceived»^^ Even when the aspect of Unity 
is emphasised, '^Society" is essentially a multicentred organisation 
where each indiyidual acts as reflex, makingit diificnlt if not impossible, 
for the society to act as a Unity, It îs, therefore/ difficuît to conceive 
the freedom of society in the same sensé as the freedom of the individual 
can be conceived. Nevertheless, sometimes we do talk of society stand- 
ing as one man, aod in this sensé the freedom of society can be thonght 
of in a sensé simiîar to one when we think of the freedom of an indivi- 
dnaL This is, for example, possible when the whole nation stands as 
*'one man' to défend itself agaînst an aggressor* It is necessary to note 
that earîier ï hâve distingulshed three sensés of the word **freedom'% 
the most fundamental sensé being that where it is used as an absolute, 
Don-relational attribute cf an IndividuaL It is in this sensé that free- 
dom of society ishardîy possible, for '*society"lsstrîctîy not a *'Unity." 
But the sensé in which we use phrases like "free to" and ''free from"% 
freedom of society is possible. For, that a society is free to do certain 
thing does not mean that there is a compulsion on every memfaer of the 
society to do a certain thing. On the contrary what is really empha- 

10, Itwiii be interestîngto note tBatphlîosopherslike Hegel and Marx îiavet^^ 
ghtof State and Society aslf they were miniature worîd. This concept of 
State or Society is comparable to Advaita concept of Brahman and so as in 
Advaita îieretoo the freedom of the individaal îsreaîîy negâfcd*^ 

1978-1 979]„ THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM 87 

sîsed îs the aspect of non-compulsion. Simîîarlyj ''society is free from 
..." merely meaos that ^*most men in the society are free from..." That 
îs, an individoal in a socîety may or may not do a certain thing. What 
then should be understood by ^sl free society*? We hâve seen that the 
Word ''free" cannot in the strict sensé be the adjective of **society" qua 
socîety. For, there is no socîety apart from îts members. Should 
free society then msan a society where every member of the society is 
a free man? But even if ail men in the society are '""free'', will the 
society be really **free" ? This is not impossible but certaînly doubtful, 
for ît îG conceivable that free actions of two free men may conflict with 
each other and thereby may lead to disordcr, or curtailment of freedom 
ofoneorboth. A "free" society cannot then be conceived of as an 
absolute notion. 

The discussion so far^ stresses that the concept of freedom îs 
essentially an individual concept. Since ''freedom" involves choice, 
and since '^choices" are likely to be infinité, the cboices of two indivi- 
duals may lead to conflict. It means that the freedom of one may 
becomc incompatible with the freedom of the other. But this is only 
an egoistic conception of freedom which self-contradicts the concept of 
freedom itself. For, it îs not the freedom of A or B or C etc., that is 
the end. It is the freedom oî h and B and C cio.^ that is the end. 
Since freedom is aa essential attribute of indîvîduals, A's freedom 
must ensure the freedom of B, C and so on, even if it means curtailment 
of the activity of A. Freedom of every individual is to be respected 
by everyone else even if the individuals form themselves înto an 'aggre- 
gâte.' The curtailment of individual freedom as a limitation of indivi- 
dual freedom points to its social dimension and thus enriches the con- 
cept itself by removing the contradiction. 

It îs necessary to point out that what appears as curtailment of 
freedom îs not so in fact, for free action is not a random action but an 
action dîrected by the self, or the person. In a ratîonal universe where 
a |)èrson understands the importance of other's freedom the choice will 
beautomatîcally a responsible choice which will take into account the 
existence and freedom of the other beings. Two free men should not 
curtail each other's freedom. It is only the nonfree men wbo are slaves 
df temptation and may eut each other's freedom. 

I hâve said earlier that the concept of freedom is significant in the 
context of man. î hâve also said that though the concept of freedom is 
useful in the contextof society it is not without some kind of qualifi- 
cation. The reason for this is that whenever we talk of society or 
world we talk of some closely knît system. If the System is open and 
if the parts of the system behave independently without being 
contralled by the system then the system is no more a system and 
the parts which behave erratîcally and in opposîtioii to the xhythm 


of the sjsîera are no more free. In fact it must be taken for granted 
ihat the "free" behaviour of the constituents of the System does not 
vioîate the rhythm of the System. If this postulate is not accepted the 
System will undoubtedly break or will be paralysed. Thus either indivi- 
duai frcedom is harmonious with the structure of the society or the 
Society is not a society but a chaise. Pleading for uncontrolled errât ic 
frecdom of the individual without caring for the rhythm and basic order 
of the society would really mean "vulgarisation" of the concept of 
frcedom and certainly when one talks of freedom of the society this is 
noî what is iatended. To Ignore the respective rôles of the individual 
and the society, is sure to resuit in some blurred imagé of freedom. Thii» 
is how by 'freedom' peopîe understand concepts which are even opiaosed 
îo one another, 

There is no doubt that in the course of human history the concept 
of freedom bas been used, misused and even vulgarised. For example 
sometimes it is vcry convenient to talk of freedom and thereby to mean 
•freedom- to others. This merely means that the "free man" 
forgets that he is a part of the universe. He perhaps thinks that 
ZToZi:' '°^f '^^.«^^f '^--^ ^-°S is only a means to his own 
autde whth ! î' r '" '^' "^''' ^°''^^" ^^^^^ this is the kind of 
ckllti On ,h fr r°'/"^ """' '' be positively resentcd and 
?or«otte; fZ tr r ^f^ '° '^^' "socialistic" countries it is 
stfct : t hc soctr Butt'f '1 "^ '' complementary to the 
about freedoin whar/s îl^nf f '"^ J^^^^opxng such eccentric notions 

bave, in fact, to biend the Zn « i *^^ '^""^ ^^'""^ ^^^ *bat we 

fundLmental to ^nd^vidual "dutî" ^ ''''■ '' "'^^^^°"" ^"^ 

formation of society We cannol *> V '. ?"""" importance in the 

f«e it is his duiyThi^, actaf dtsrv:7ndt;:;i".t ^^"^^^ ^°^^'*^> - 

two concepts Freedom (of the mdiyTdulufJf}'°' ^° '°''"*y- ^fa» 
«o hand in hand; each one acts a.Ti. f^ •! """^^^^ ^*° *^« ^°«iety) 
a m.n is free to do his duty u ^VuM ^"^^ °' '^' °*''^- ^^"« ^^ 

On the ather hand it would J'wf T "'*!" «^^nflicts among men. 
j^^dividual is to be appSt'd but the tnT^'^^ ^"^'°°^ ^^ *^- 
be resentcd. Individual freeLm s liL a ?ft'\ ?' '°"^^ °^^^ "°* 
^^efficicntly i„ the sky soTol as^l IZ'"^''^ '""^ ^' effectively 
»oc.ety. Howevcr. it must lohlrT l ^^ ^^'^ *° ^^'^ earth by the 

(.« the Kiciety). in the strict seLel?. h \^""'=*'«« ofthe individuals 
Bot t property of man wh kh inl '^ *'^^' however, freedom is 
'«i«-ce' is not a p.edfcat, Uslnfr*'" '''"" '^- Kant^Sd 
i-'^«e to say that frLdom L istît ^ïeVc^. ^'^°" ^* ^^^"'^ ^^^ 



Buddhism arose sometime between 5th and 6th centuries b.c. 
This religion iioldsaclue to the understanding of the ancîent Indian 
Society. That the Buddha came frora Sâkya tribe and was the son of a 
kingare proven facts of history, There is a wealth of évidence to show 
thattbe Buddha was not an imaginary character. The probîems touched 
by the Buddha hâve a dualsignificance. They show on one hand the 
scope of Buddhism and on the other reflect the nature of the religion 
and idcology of the people from whom the Buddha arose, and of those 
with whom he was to dififer. 

Manyof the places referred to in the Buddhist scripture and 
mentioned in connection with the mission of the Buddha are to be found 
even today. The émergence of the Buddha is regarded as a very 
significant occurrence in the history of India, Apart from the fact that 
a new religion was given by the Buddha, its far reaching influence on 
Indian society and in the moulding of ideas which were différent from 
the heliefs which prevailed when Buddhism began to taJce shape, indicate 
fundamental changes in Indian society. Before the rise of Buddhism, 
Hinduism had maintained total supremacy withoutany rival religion, 
but when the new religion became popular the older religion faced a 
numberof difficulties and probîems. 

On the basis of the évidence available onc! can construct a fairly 
ciear picture of the personality of Gotama Buddha. There was a clear 
streak of renunciatlon in him which was responsible for many décisions 
he took in his life. There wa?'. hardly any necessity for a person belon- 
ging toaroyal family to think of such aspects of life and existence 
which in ail probability were unlikely to be faced byhim> 

The Buddha must hâve received extraordinary training and 
éducation. At an young âge he acquired mastery in différent fields of 



kn ,wîed« as is depicted by ihe tradition of Buddhism. He had a deep 
ndetfndiog of the .a/or concepts of religion fo''owed by people 
surrounding faim. He observed the social and rehgious order of h,s time 
anl disagreed witfa the prévalent beliefs andideasabout the nature of 
man and reality. His inborn résignation and detachment stirred within 
him doubts and questions which the religious teachers could not answer 

Mûdern psychologists classify human beings into two major 
diMsions: introverts and extroverts. The Buddha must hâve been an 
intnnert. This is proved by his reluctance to follow the vs^ay of life 
which IS iraditionaily fîxed for a prince. 

Th if e are anecdotes msntioned in the Buddhist literature about 
the Buddha's meetings with différent religioxjs teachers. Undertbeir 
influence Le performed the most rigorous asceticism. It is said that 
ander the spe!l of asceticism he underwent so many rigours that by sheer 
chancf heremained alive. But the alert mind of the Buddha did not 
ge« se!f-faypnotised afaout the efScacy of asceticism. Against the 
asceîic path of torture and pain the Buddha emphasised on the value of 
contemplation and méditation. By analysing the nature of conscious- 
ncss and existence the Buddha gained final certitude. Nothing ever 
convinced the Buddha as much as the enlightenment attained by him. 

That the human suffering has its origin in human actions is clearly 
asscrted by the Buddha. The due to end suffering lies in one's efforts. 
The Buddha emphasised on the rôle of the individual in conquering the 
miscries and sufferings facing him. The emphasis on the actions and 
choiccs of persons must hâve shocked those who believed that it is not 
haman action, but the performance of sacrifices, rituals and cérémonies 
which give rcal happiness to a man. The Buddha was averse to ritu- 
«Hsm. The Buddha initiated a new trend of self-search which 
undoubjedjy boosîed the self-confidence of the individuals. He did not 
quote any spiritual teacher in his sermons nor he borrowed anything 
from the nch religious literature available, and preferred to follow the 
oath whch his self-confidence charted out for him. But the Vedic 
tradition certaialy heiped in developing the personality of the Buddha. 
An «raportant trait of his personality cornes out in his dislike for 
t f n ^''^^°' b.-longed to a vigorous cuit and their number 

ratilf.tri^ °ïï'' hâve hindered the spread of Buddhism during its 

«r^^Lîfff Tî ^T'^^i'^" ^'^ ^°' futile and that the individual 
r»r mfSrr '-"''"^^^^ accordlngtohis initiative and 
^ilte^ce w^s ï f itl M. '°^r"l ^°''^ ^°^ significance of human 
eiweace «as m qu.te contrast to the assertions of some phSlosephies 


that howcver hard man may struggle and strive he has nothîng bettcr in 
store awaîting him. The Buddha refused to accept that life isa futility 
and he must hâve enraged the Ajivîkas as well as other sects which did 
not accept the ail pcrvading moral law and the harmonîous beyond. 
Therc were many varictîes of hedonism prcached by the materialist 
cuits, but they did not make any impression on the Buddha. The 
Buddha strcssed that by losing oneself in sense-pleasurcs a man may 
kcep hîmself away from the sujBFerings of life, but this escape is 

Unlike the materialists or naturalists the Buddha had belief in a 
higher reality. Matcrialism ir ancient India had a liraited following 
and the more popular Vedism must hâve curtailed its growth and attrac- 
tion. In a way the Buddha indirectly joined his forces v^ith the Vedic 
tradition, to v^ipe out ail the vestiges of materialist influence. 

It is not unusual for opposite traditions to gain better understapd- 
ing of each other when they are faced with a common threat. From thîs 
point of view materialism and oaturalism were threats both to the Vedic 
tradition aud to th^ beltefs of the Buddha, But the Buddha opposed not 
only the materialists but also the followers of theistic and orthodoxical 
traditions. If the Buddha opposed the atomists for lacking a concept of 
the total reality; he opposed the theists for giving a formai description 
ofsomethîng which is beyond the power of human understanding. By 
accepting that one should not be too optimistîc about the scope and 
power of human mind and understanding, the Buddha expressed his in- 
tellectual modesty. Instead of making attempts to describe the nature 
of the spiritual reality in terms which cannot be vcrificd by actual cog- 
nition and expérience, the Buddha stressed on the need for restraint on 
imagination and description • In contrast to the Buddha the Vedic 
sccrs did not confine statements and expressions to the limits of under- 
standing, expérience and perception. The Vedic seers revelled in the 
beauty of language and imagery and they worshipped the word. But the 
Buddha did not believe in sacredwords and syllables and instead empha- 
sîsed only on those éléments which the sensations and mind can grasp. 
In this way the Buddha followed a diametrically opposite view-point not 
acceptable to the vedic thinkers and also aimed to show that the natura- 
listic and atomîstic explanations of the world and reality are inadéquate; 

The disagreement of the Buddha with the tradition surrpunding 
him cornes out in his teaching. Thcre are arguments in support of the 
view that the Buddha took much from the tradition giving it a new 
interprétation. But the total lackof dependence on any traditional t)c- 
liefs, practices and concepts in his qucst for certainly before enîightr 
ment amply proves that he had no faith in the prévalent modes of 
thought and beliefs. It becomes clear that he did not take anything ftom 


the Vedic tradition or from the ascetic and materialist sects and orders. 
After enUghtment he claimed perfection bat not before it* This again 
shows that he had no spiritual guide or a religious tradition to follow. 

The religion of the Buddha is an example of a religion which re- 
flects the initiative and struggle of one man. The Buddha depended 
solely on his powers and strength and wanfed to reach that point of cer- 
tainity before which nothing was important and signijBcant. This aspect 
of Buddhism depicts the heights which could be reached by man when 
there is total dedication towards the gaining of the coveted objective. 
Perhaps this trait of Baddhîsm appealed the masses greatly and which 
expîains the rapîd growthofthis religion, A religion which gave ab<- 
solute value to human effort must hâve raised the waning confidence of 
the peopîe in their capacities to reach the state of béatitude. 

When Hinduism became a tool în the hands of certain groups it 
became out of touch with the psychological and spiritual needs of man. 
For thèse developments in Hinduism certain extraneous éléments were 
responsibîe and not its basic beliefs. When the Hindu socîety became 
rîgid it provided the ground for the development of an alternative reli- 
gion. It is no wonder thpt Buddhism fiUed this gap. This conflict bet- 
ween Buddhism and other religions was not a concocted one, but the 
actual resuit of hîstorical circumstances There are numerous examples 
of learned Hindus havlng discussions with the Buddha and embracing 

The personality and teachingof the Buddha satisfied the hard felt 
needs of the Indian society. When the essentials of Hindu etbics were 
forgotten there developed want on disregard for the sanctîty of life. 
Animal sacrifices were made a religious necessity. But the message of 
compassion given by the Buddha turnedthe tide against différent kinds 
of meaningless ritoal and sacrifices. The noble message of the Buddha 
and his deep regard for ail forms of life left an indelible imprint on the 
Bnddhist religion and ethics. The personality traits of the Buddha be- 
came the basis of the Buddhist religion, The stress on love and compas- 
sion is so deep in Buddhist scripture that Buddhism bas been called the 
religion of compassion. Compassion and love in the sensé of noble 
human attributes, are singularly missing in the Vediç tradition- In 
many religions the taking of lîfe in particular circumstances has been 
made a part of religions beliefs and regarded as a merited act. But 
compassion being intégrai with human nature remains an attribute which 
détermines the course of human history and the well being of mankind. 
The virtue of compassion changes the attitude of man towards the mani- 
festation of nature and can împrovethe texture ofbuman relations. The 
^mphasis laid by the Buddha on the natural attributes of man shows his 
îderstanding of the conditions and déterminants of human nature. 


Maay instincts and attributes are commonly shared by al! living orga- 
nisms. The human beings do not monopolise the qualities of love and 
aflFection. For the higher an organism is in the scale of évolution the 
more pronounced and refined are its instinctual and natural powers, 
The Buddhist emphasis on compassion isnot one sided, for it implies 
abstinence from such acts, thought and beliefs which insîactly or remo- 
tely may counter it. The emphasis of the Buddha is on the sopression 
of desires and inclinations which are not conducive lo the realîzation 
of the higher values in life. 

The approach of the Buddha was down to earth and unlike his 
contemporary Vedic teachers. Hedidnot adopt language forms and 
subtleties to cloth the simple beliefs and ideas good for maiikind, The 
Buddhist scripture especîally the more oîder reflects the objective and 
faetual approach towards human problems. The Buddha is coccerned 
more about man than about the nature of reality, Hence the sermons of 
the Buddha are around simple doubts of persons and they end on a note 
of confidence, Thîs approach of the Baddha is not philosophical and 
abstruse like the dialogues of the Upanisads. For the Buddha refuses to 
indulge in logical hair-splitting and does not describe things which a 
person cannot expérience. 

The Hindu scripture, the basis for Hinduism is taken as revealing 
the world of God; In the case ofBaddhism the factor of révélation îs 
entirely missîng. The Buddha claimed no révélations, for he maîn- 
tained that he always relied on méditation coupled with action. This 
shows the value given by the Baddha to human action* expérience and 
knowledgein understanding the deeper aspects of human nature and 
suffering/ which he claimed can free man from untruth. 

It is difficult to analyse the personality of the Buddha in depth, 
because of the lack of well-recorded events of bis life. The discourses 
of the Baddha are avaîlable, but they are far from being autographicaL 
The sermons of the Buddha clarify important problems of religion, ethics 
and the nature of the world. This does not mean that one cannot know 
about the personality of the Buddha on the basis of the ideas stressed 
by him. 

The world View of the Baddha was in no way inferior to that of 
the vedic religion. The Buddha aimed to make his doctrine envelop 
ail the aspects of lîfe and existence. He had clear notions concerning 
the origination of the world and he tried to wedgc the knowkdge aod 
understandingof the world with certain primary beliefs* For the Buddha 
the world îs a place where the individual hasto reckon with manythM^^ 

and get himself acquit ted honourabiy by dischargîng his apportmned 


tasks and duties and to desîst from accumulating attachmcnts without 
understanding the conséquences. Though the moral ordcr acceptcd by 
the Buddha has many resemblanccs with the vedic Rta, in the context 
of the teaching of the Buddha it îs impossible to dérive the notion that 
tbe moral order wilfuUy créâtes the unîverse. Hinduism accepts the 
création of the uni verse and the life forms by a suprême power, but 
there is no such corresponding theory in Buddhîsm. On the other hand 
în buddhism the origination of cverything is dépendent on certain 
causes and the rcmoval of thèse causes means the lapse of things into 
a State of harmony. Can this theory be compared with the Sâmkhya 
assumption that commotion in the Prakrti due to its proximity with the 
créative principle Purusa sets motion the process of création ? But the 
dualism of Sâmkhya does not resemble the unified moral order of the 
Buddha. Moreover if there is any resemblance bctween the SImkhya 
évolution and the Buddhist explanation of the origin of the world it is 
not very deep în the sensé that the Buddhists hâve no bclief in the soûls* 
But so far as the origination of the univcrse from a non-divine source 
is concerned the old Sâmkhya and the Buddha hâve agrecmcnt, Any- 
how, there îs évidence to deny the view-point that the Buddha lacked the 
knowledge of the leading philosophical Systems and religions beliefs 
prévalent in his timc. 

The religion of Hinduism can be traced to certain meta-physical 
conceptions, but such an attempt is not feasible as for Buddhîsm is con- 
cerned. If Hinduism could managc to explain the basis of life in 
tones of realism and empiricîsm the Buddha does not lack the necessary 
infrastructure of ideas and beliefs to explaîn the nature of the ultimate 
harmonious order in terms of cmpirîcal realities and expériences of life. 
The Buddha hesîtated to accept any élément in man which is universal 
and eternal, whether it is to be called as the soûl or the divine attribute. 
He though t that in the présence of an eternal élément in man a thorough 
understanding of human life would be impossible, Âccording to the 
Buddha a permanent soûl wouîd permanently détermine the indivîdual 
with imprints from which he may find no escape. On the contrary the 
absence of such a permanent cntity în the indivîdual would provide 
ample scopc for the understanding of human life and rectification of 
ail those thîngs which create disharmony în existence and cntangle the 
indivîdual in futile pursuits. Instead of a souI the Buddha preferred 
a no-souL Bat the no~soul of the Buddha is not empty and meaning- 
less, for it indicates ail that essence which the indivîdual collectsin 
ignorance and which falls under the law of cause and effect from which 
an carnest thirst for higher values can only provide rédemption. The 
individual has no soûl but he unwittingly gathers resîdtium of his 
actions whenever he indulges in unmeditatcd actions, Thi» explanation 
of the Buddha falls in bctween the affirmation of the soûl in the vedic 
religion and the déniai of the souI by sects like Âjlvikas, Like the 


materialists the Buddh denied thc existence of soûl but this does not 
meaa that he acceptcd the other materialistic assiimptions. 

The Buddha had no set pre-suppositions to explain the events or 
the interactions between the real and the particular. Hinduism possesses 
comprehensive notions to explain events and things. But in the case of 
thc Buddha the conceptions which he developed are mainly the results 
of his research for a theoxetical frame work justify the relevance of his 
Personal expériences. 

As the founder of a religion the Buddha dîd not give a scripture, 
intact and whole, and whatever scrîpture became available consisted of 
his discourses and sermons as remembered by his disciples. This shows 
thc différence between the religion of Buddhism and other Indian reli- 
gions including Jainism. Hinduism had the benefit of dcpending on 
values regarded as eternal, and Jaînism claimed a very long history in 
which it was periodîcally expressed by différent Tirthankaras, Mahâvîra 
being the last one. If Hinduism and Jainism had the benefit of depend- 
ing on tradition the Buddha had no such tradition though he began 
a new tradition. The non-reliance on tradition gave the Buddha many 
advantages and he could set into motion such îdeas which were altogc- 
ther new to the tempo of his période The Buddha did not allow any 
restraint on thinking and his teachings are simple narrations of the 
higher requirements of man. 

The absence of assumptions regarding the nature of reality and 
the non acceptance of the bonds between the indivîdual and the divine 
did not hamper the Buddha in analysing the situations and doubts troub- 
ling man. It does not mean that the Buddha was not aware of the 
depths of hu man nature nor he was sceptical about the capacities of 
man to havc knowledge of things which aredifflcult to perceive and 
infer. He affirmée that one can dépend on the raw expérience oflîfe 
and hope for finding the meaning and significance of ideas, thoughts 
and actions. Life has varied functîons but allofthem are not of the 
same category. The Buddha indicates the significant functions of man, 
and judges thém according to the ethical ideas. The Buddha analyses the 
modes of human existence and after elaborating the différent implica- 
tions of thoughts and actions he plnpointsthose which are superior 
becauseof bénéficiai conséquences. 

The Buddha*s deep study of the then prévalent religions belîefs 
and the phîlosophîcal concepts become clear in his assertion that ques- 
tions unrelated to the actual necessities of lîfe should not begiven con- 
ceptual form and accepted ai truths. He madc it clear that the con- 
ccptual explanation of the absolute truth and the eternal do nothelp in 
the uud er standing of the needs of a religions Hfe. The Buddha shows 


thatinorder to be religious one need neither accept that the world i& 
eternal nor that it is not etemaL Similarly there is no need for any 
dograa which maîntains that the realised person exîsts after death or 
does not exîst after death (Warren, Buddhîsm in Translations p. 121). 
The Buddha was more anxîous to deal with the conditions of life which 
tie individual cannot escape like birth, old âge, death, sorrow and 
despair. According to him the aim of religion is to prépare the indivi- 
dual to escape the manifold suffering, and not to develop impressive 
concepts which do not serve any practical purpose. It is not difficult 
to see that the Buddha is referring to the cardinal théories of the vedic 

The Buddha never commented on any Upanisadic concepts direc- 
tly, but one can' clearly find hîs intend towards them. He wantedto 
show that many dogmas of religion are not capable of removing the 
human suffering. What he found in différent religious orders failed 
to produce a favourable impression on him and in this background that 
the Buddha émerges as an innovator in the jBeld of religion. 

According to the Buddha religion bas to concern itself with the 
immédiate motives and not with the ultimate questions of life. It is 
ciear that the Buddha wanted to compensate for the felt lack in the 
tradition. The message and ideas of the Buddha met the requirements 
of those who b^longed to the non-Buddhist tradition. In the discourses 
of the Buddha it is rarely that any vedic text or an Upanisad is men- 
tioned by him, but they are mentioned by those who came to him 
seeking clarifications on différent problems. In his replies to questions 
he does not name any text of the opposite tradition, but prefers to hear 
them mentioned by persons who approached him to get his opinion on 
religious matters» This proves that the ideas of the Buddha grew in a 
parallelity to the dominant concepts of the opposite tradition. The 
vedic tradition laid much emphasis on the relation of harmony and unity 
between the individual self and the absolute reality. But, for the 
Buddha there is no self yet there is harmony which is not divine. But 
this does not mean that Buddhism owes its genesis and developmcnt to 
the reactions of Gotama towards any tradition or traditions. 

It h argued that beliefs of other religions traditions entered into 
Buddhism and inspiteof his scrupulons avoidance of the vedic beliefs 
the Buddha mentions the gods and the Devas on many occasions. This 
is interpreted as theproof that the Buddha hasadopted some concepts 
bôlonging to the tradition surrounding him. But the question is whc- 
ther the Buddha accepted the Devas and the gods in the way they werç 
accepted in the vedic tradition and religion. The gods and the Devai 
referrcdto by the Buddha indicate persons who attained complète 


reîeasc from the bondage of karma. As thc Buddha never claimed that 
prier to him noae had attained cnlightement it explains his admiration 
for the perfect beings, the Devas. The Buddha made it clear that the 
path chosen by him is the resuit of his quest for certainty and truth and 
it is left to the others to follow it or work eut their own salvation like 
the enlightened beiags or the Devas. This implies that many pcrsons in 
the past raight hâve treaded îhe path of wîsdom and attained enlighten- 
ment* Hence his référence to gods does not mean acceptance of the 
vedic panthéon. This point can be further made clear by taking note 
of the expériences of the Buddha before he attained enlightenmeot. He 
mentions in many discourses how the evil incarnate Mira and his 
daughters tried to divert hiai from the path of truth and virtue. The 
description of Màra bas only an aUegorical value. Mâra indicated 
everything which was against the higher values and méditation on truth* 
To explain man*s instinctual urges and to show how the mind gets 
diverted frora the point of concentration the dependence on symbols 
does not mean that the Buddha accepted Mara as an actual person. 
Mira is only a symbol describing the attractions of the flesh and the 
habit of mind to revert to the path of least résistance and înertia. The 
saint veered away from ail worldly attractions to reach the pinnacle of 
spiritual réalisation and this was represenied allegorically as spurning 
the attractioQ of the daughters of Mâra. What is most tangible is the 
single minded concentration of the Buddha to findthe secret to overcome 
the sufiferings of life. The need to keep the mind free from distractions 
in order to meditate on higher truths may hâve been expressed by the 
Buddha in a persuasive way to the increasing number of lay followers 
who were anxious to know his expérience prior to enlightenment. There 
is no évidence in the teaching of the Buddha that he ever învoked or 
worshipped God. This disproves the contention of some scholars that 
the Buddha accepted in a limited way the existence of the gods and the 
Devas in similarity to the vedic religion. 

The argument of the Buddha to convince the ascetic Vaccha that 
form arises due to certain causes and that it is perishable summarises 
oneof the main tenets of Buddhism, which found expression in the 
spéculations of the Buddhist teacher like Nagasena. The Buddha 
emphasised that one would gain much by knowing the origin and 
vanishing of the form^ sensation, perception^ prédisposition and 
consciousness. He said to Vaccha that after attaining freedom from 
attachment the notion of ego vanished and this led him to the path of 
deliverance and enlightenment, The Buddha said that when there 
is no fuel there is no iîre. When the flame goes ont one does not 
know which direction it takes. If there is no fuel to feed the fire ît 
won^t continue. Similarly one who has become free from the notion of 
form, has actually become non-cxistent and there is no question of his 
appearancc in the future. The ascetic Vaccha after hearing the words 

109 — 13 


of the Buddha compared hîm to a big sala; tree which hascastoffits 
dead branches and is standing neat and clean» 

Thô Buddha is calleda Sramana. The Suita Nipata contains a 
dialogue betweea the Buddha and the smith known as Knnda. The 
Buddha mentions four kinds of Samanas. (1) the Maggajinas i.e. those 
who hâve cooquered a!l doubts and who possess outstacding moral 
attributes; (2) the Maggûdesikas i.e., those who hâve no desires and as 
Bhikkus they spend their time in explaining the Dhamma. (3) The 
Maggajmns i^e., those who are following corapletely the message of 
the Dhamma and whose life reflects perfectly the highest teaching, and 
(4) the Maggadusîns are those who are not following the virtuous path 
and are deceitful The Suita Nipata ends with the ad vice that one who 
follows the teaching of the Enlighlened One acquires higher wisdom. 
The Buddha draws a distinction between the pure and the impure, the 
virtuous and the noa-virtaous and maintains that eveo a house holder 
caa hope for salvation, 

It is generally thought that the Buddha had no message for those 
who were not ready to become monks. On the contrary he regarded 
that whoever follows his path irrespecîive of his place in the society 
will be the receipient of every blessing. As his teaching is not grounded 
în texts regarded as sacred he cannot be taken as limiting his message 
to those who accepted him as their deliverer. Buddhism is a religion 
which does not impose any preconditions and people freely joined the 
congrégations which the Buddha was scheduled to address. The Buddha 
indicated that his path ismeant for ail. The doctrine of the Buddha 
was free from ail theological trâppings and there was no question of 
masteriîîg the dogmatic intricacies. 


1, Ananda K. Coomaraswamy : Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism^ 
Asia Publishing House, 1956. 

2, Corne : Buddhîst Scrîpture Down Through îhe Ages, Oxford, 1954. 

3. George Grimm : The Buddha and His Doctrine, Allen and Unwin, 

4. Rhys Davids : Buddhism, Indological Book House, 1973, 

5. Mrs. Rhys Davids : Buddhism lis Blrth and Dispersai 

6, Warren : Buddhism in Translations, Harvard University Press, 



In course of my study of Vïrasaivism as a spécial subject I found 
itnecessary to show that thc forms of literature and that of philoso- 
phical literature are différent and eachhas itsown objectto be fulfîUed. 
There are works on Virasaivisra which belong to thèse forms. The paper 
is an attempt in this regard. 

Literature and Phîlosophical Literature : 

Lâksanïkas made distinction between literature and philosophie 
(scientific) literature {ï.q. snhîtya and ssstra-sâhitya) by stating that 
literature is likc a counsel of wife (kântâsammita) and philosophical 
literature is like teaching of master ( gurusammit a). Ihtîe arc, again, 
a number of Hterary forms such as poetry, novel, story, drama, bio- 
graphy, autobiography, etc. and they are defincd also. The students 
of literature are well acquainted with tbis. Similariy there are forms 
of philosophie literature. They are thc sûtra, ths kârikaoi vrtti or the 
vârîtika, the bhSsya, and thc prakarana. Each one of thèse forms is 
defined by writers. Any Hterary person can eojoy the works belonging 
toany one form of literature. Butitisnot the case with the Works 
belonging to the forms of philosophical literature. For one needs spécial 
training in phi losophy to study them. One may quote a passage as aa 
example from Virasaiva literature in Kannada: 

nânlnemha bheda andû ïlla, indu lUa 
salokyanalia^ sâmipyanalla sarana 
sarûpyanalla, sâyuj'yanalla sarana 

1. L. Basavaraju, Allamana Vacanacandrike;Mysotc i960, p. 150. v, 689. 


'There îs no différence between you and me eîther thcn or now; 
éaraça îs ncith&T sahkya {âwclUng in the same^world i.e. God*s 
world), nor sa mi py a (dwelling near Him); Sarana is neither 
sarupya (attaining the same form i e. of God) nor sâyujya (being 
united with Him) He Hîmself is Guhesvara - the God. So He 
is neither haviog 'body' nor is he having 'no body'. 

The student of literatare with ail his literary equipments cannot be snc- 
cessful in explaining the above quoîed vacana fi.e. mystic saying), though 
ît is in a very simple language. The equipments for the explanation arc 
différent. To explain and to evalnate the first line one is to equip with 
the knowledge of différent doctrines of ontology in Indian Schools of 
thought. The second line consists of the form s of mt/Jfcr/ (libération) 
aceepted by the Vaisnava and the Saiva religions, So in order to explain 
the passage one requires the knowledge of those forms and the subtle dif- 
férences of the metaphysical stands on which they hâve been based. The 
last liae consists of two types of *îhe doctrine of body' which are found 
îû one or the other forms in most of the orthodox and heterodox schools. 
So, tbis is a quite différent subject to be mastered, tfaat is needed for the 
interprétation of the last line. Thiis the equiproents of a student of phi- 
losophical literature and that of the students of literature are quite 
différent. The vacanas would remain sealed treasure house to oneif he 
is not sufficiently equipped for that porpose, 

There are greater chances of committing mistakes in the case of 
students of literature when they try to interpret religions literature as 
they are aot quîte well aware of metaphysical subtle différences. There 
are students of literature who advise to know concepts purusa 
and prakrtî in the Sââkya system in order to know the concepts Hnga and 
anga In the Vïrasaiva system and tfais is quite wrong. This shows that 
being an expert in literature is not the same as being an expert in othcr 
branches of knowledge. 

Characterisîîcs of Vîrasaîva Lîieraiure and Vtrasaiva Fhilosophîcal 
Literature : 

The great poets like Harihara and Sadaksara describe the nature 
of subject mat ter of poetry and right ose of the genîus with which the 
poet endowed thus : 

îanatanagindracandra Ravî-Karna-Dadhicî-Bahndrar^ 
nanavaratam pogaldu kedabëdete manava ntnaharîmsam 
nene pogaîarcîsemma kaâu sompina pempina hampeyaldanaml p 

2* S»S« Malwad, Karnataka Sâhitya Samskrti-darsana^ Dharwad 1939 p. 73. 


Thesxim and subtance of the stanza is that the subject matter of the 
poetry should be only God and not the mortals. This is a catcgorical 
imperative for the poets. Another one is in connection with the true use 
of the talent of the poet about which §adaksaradeva states : 

raseyoî rasavatkaviteya 

nusural padeda samanayananam pogalade ms 

nisaram suraram pogaîmdu 

kasavaramafk kaledu kasavanantavolakkum^ 

The power of writing poetry is a gif t. It^should be used properly. The 
proper use of it lies in pxaising the God Siva. The students of literature 
makc a study of literature from the point of view of forms of literature 
prosody, grammar, création of character, style, etc. They may also 
make a comparative study of the poets or authors in each ficld of 

Vîrasaiva philosophical literature is fouBded by the distinguished 
mystic thînkers on the foUowing concepts : 

1) mâtembudu j'yoTîrlinga^ (Word is light Divine) 

2) sabdasopïïnava-katti'-nadisidaru puratanaru 

devaîokakke batte kïïffiro^ 
(The ancient mystîcs built word-road to the heaven and led 
others on it) 

3) nuâidare Ungamecci ahudenabeku^ 
(God must say yes, if He is spoken to) 

4) vadalemba bandige sarattara nudigadanave kadegilu^ 
(words of saranas are side-wedge to the cart of iife) 

The first saying is of Allamaprabhu, who is compared to Socrétes by 
Dr. R,D. Ranade. The quotation in question states that word is abso- 
lute. This is the subject matter of philosopby. The second sentence is 
of Cennabasavanna. It states that the word of ^éaraça ismeans to the 
abode of God. This ispramâna according to the Sivasaranas. The third 

3. R.C. Hiremath, M.S. Sunkapur; mjaêekhara Ki/ô^a (Karnataka Universcity, 
Dharwad. 1965; p,4* st»21. 

4. L. Basavaraju, Aîlamana Vacanacandrike (Nalanisankara Prakasaoa, Mysorô 
1960), 2Uv. 951. 

5. R.C. Hiremath, Chennabasavannana vacanagalu^ (Karnatak lluiversity» 1965) 
V. 666. 

6. S»S. Basavanal, Basavannana varavacanagaiu, (L.E. Association, Dharwad> 
1962), p, 215, V. 802. . " 

7. P.G. Halakatti, Jedara -^ Dâsimayyana vacanagalu» (Samàradapustakalaya, 
Dharwad, 1956, p. I, V. 2. 


sentence is of Basavanna who is compared to Plato by Dr. R.D. Ranadc 
and to Martin Luther by others^ Accordîng to him the word is self-evi- 
dent, The fourth sentence is that of Jedara Dâsimayya who is supposed 
to be the first vacanakUra that lived earlicr to Basavanna, His sentence 
given above says: Word of éivasarana is a moral law that controls man 
and savcs from rnîn. Thus thèse sayîngs mark the limita of areas of rc- 
search in the field of Virasaiva philosophy. 

Forms ofVirasaîva Phiïosophîcal Liîeraîure : 

In the field of Vïraisaiva philosophicalliteratnre there are certain 
set forms of treatises mcntioned in some of the books. E.g. 

Srî vîsudha prakaranahgaîanesagi reda 


navrîtiyam vyakhyemam bareda BodhayanayanUru Sûhkararyam 

Ydvo Haradattar Trilocan^ghorasiva 

devagunanîîaya Sarvatma Éambhvgalana 

îâvanar bhuîîkanthâdî purvïïcMryarivudemagamaïa maîîyam^ 

In this stanza the poct Padmanânka m. tnlions prakarana^ bhdsya^ dipikey 
vrtti^vyakhyâna^ which arc the forms of phîlosophical literature written 
by the Yirasaiva writers, The karnEtaka Kavîcarîte and other works on 
Indian culture^ religion and phiiosophy give us more information about 
the Works that belong to the above said forms of phiïosophîcal litera§ 
turc, Sripatipandita^ statcs in the introductory portion of the Brahma- 
sUtrabhdsya called Srikarabhasya that this commentary on the Brahma" 
.yw/ra^ is based on the vrttî written by Agastya. Rsabhapandita^^ who 
wrote a commentry on the Taîttîrïya Upanisady states ih the beginnîng 
of ft that sage Diîrvâsa wrote a yrril to the Brahmasutrds. Dr. Srikantha 
Shastrij^^ States that Diïrvâsa wrote a vrtii to the Brahmasûtras. He 
States that Mancanapandita^^ wrote a commentary to the Yedas and wrote 
vacanas also. Sâsala Cikkanaradhya wrote the Panca brahmodaya which 
îs a commentry in Kannada on the commentry of SrîpatipaBdita written 
on the Vedamanîta. GurunaSjadeva wrote a commentary in Kannada to 
the Yajurvedabhâsya written by Bhattabhâskara. Vîranarâdhya wrote 
the S ivafnmmpradipike which is a vyâkhyâ in Kannada to th& Dasagranthi, 
Cannavirapandita wrote the Viramahesvaratîke and the Purusasûktûfike, 
GabbiyaMalIaana wrote a iika to the Vamlâgama. Maritantadârya 

8. (î) R.C, Hîrematîî, Fadmarâjapurâna (Muraghamath» Dharwad, 1958) pA*sUll 

9* T,0» Siéàh'3Lpp2ix^ûhy^^érîkarabhâsya 

10. Kashinatîishastrî, VïraÉaivamahQtmaru^ Mysore 1954, p» 39. 
ÏL ibid»p* 59, Srikantha Sbastrî, op. cit#, p> 156 ' 

.■■'■12. ;ibid^,p, 157 ■■ "'' ^ ■':„,;■'■■■;■'"■■.'■ :.-v\,:,: , 


wrote a commentary on the Siddhsntasîkhâmani. "Malîayârya wrote 
Èîvajnanapradipîke. Laksmideva wrote the Saroddhara which is an esse- 
nce of tbe Vedas, Sastras and the Pumnas. Jyotirnâtha wrote the 
Éùivarainâkara. Jagadâradhya Nâgesa wrote the éîvjnanasamuccaya ... .*. 
Thèse are the Vîrasaiva Works written in Sanskrit. **i3 Thèse are some 
of the important works belongîng to the forms of philosophical litera- 
tare such as the bhasya, vyâkhyana. Thèse Vedic and Âgamîc works 
form important portion of philosophical literature of Vlrasaîvism. 

Forms of Philosophical Literature and their Characterîsttcs : 

Let us see what do the laksanîkas mean by sastra first. There are 
a numberof définitions. I sélect two définitions which are oriented from 
the point of both the religion and metaphysics. 

(1) sasanaî trananacca sastram^^ 

Sastra is that which gives norms for life and strength as well. 
Thîs définition is religion orienfted. 

(2) Pravrîttirvà nîvrtîîva nityena krtakena vë } 

'Sastra is that which teaches învolvement and rennnciation 
as well as discrimination between eternal and non-eternal/ 
This définition is a metaphysicaily oriented one* 

In view of thèse two définitions, the sastra works fall under two heads 
viz., the religions and metaphysical. Man bas psychological or intellec- 
tual wants just as he has biological needs. The form of philosophical 
literatnre are the standing example to this fact. 

The birth of Indian religio-philosophical literature beginswith 
the mantras of the Vedas. The Vedic seers saw the words and uttered 
them to the people around them. The words thus heard. are called stuti 
The seers în due course oftime began to arrange thèse man/r^j^ according 
to the mental needsof the man and the literature thus systematîsed is 
called asramasâhitya. There are four âsramas vîz- the brahmacarya, 
gïïrhastya^ vanaprastha 3,nd sanyasa and the literature corresponding to 
fouT àsramas is mantrai brahmana^ âranyaka and upanisadJ^ The Vedic 
thînkers, as they began to feel the necessity for stillhigher form of meta- 
physical activity fouûd ont a new form of philosophical literature calîed 
sUtras or aphorisms. This is the earliest available form of metaphysical 
literature, This appearéd not only in the orthodox religions literature 

13. Dr, Hendi,B3., Ed. i>î/c^ûf^£?^/^^; (Karnataka University, 19^^ 

14. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Phitasophy Vol. I, (George Allen and Unwïn 


but also in heterodox relîgîous literaturc. The laksanîkas define 
suîrE as : 

laghunî sUcitSrihâni svalpëksarapadani ca / 
sarvatah sïïrabhufani suframyakurmanfsiftah jj ^^ 

Aphorism dcals with a given question very bricfly by using letters and 
words economically. It is a word or a group of words pregnent with 

This way of writing made the enormous mass of mantra literature 
very handy. Sûîras gave logical shape to thc thoughts în the manîras, 
Understanding of the suîras became difficult în course of tîme. The 
scholars in ihe field came forward to solve this difficulty. Th«sy wanted 
that the suîras are to be explained and at the same time what they wrote 
in the forna of explanation should be easy to mémorise. So they prefer- 
red versified form to the prose form. This form of phîlosophical litera- 
ture îs called karika or vfttî. Laksamikas d^&ne karikë thus : 

Karika tu svalpavrttau bahorarîhasya sucam / ^^ 

JÇariM wrîter uses a few words to give much meaning. But karîka is 
notas short as sUtra, ^'Karikës^ though în a sensé.. ...arc an explana- 
tion, cannot be called commentary (bhSBya). Kârikas are writtcn in 
order to commit some snbject matter or teachîng to memory.. ...Kârikâs 
use nyëyas sometimes to throw light on meaning and to propound it 
whenever and wherever necessary**'^^ 

We corne across another form of phîlosophical literature whîch is 
quite différent from the above two forms. It is called *bhâsya\ This 
form of literature came into existence to serve în a new purpose, The 
bhasyakârû not only explains the sUtras ot karîkâs but also puts forth 
his point of view which is supposée to be the view point of the sutras. 
Ldîksanîka describes it thus : 

sUtmrtho varftyate yatra vukyaîh suîrmnusarîbhih / 
svapûdëni ca varnyante bhâsyam bhësyavido vîduh /j ^^ 

The passage means : The bhâsya is that which explains the meaning of 
the aphorisms with the help of those sentences that follow the aphorîsms 
and also explains îts own words, The place of bhasya in Indîan philo- 
sophical literature îs very hîgh. They make the philosophy explicît and 

15. AMû^vmi^nû^, Brakmasûtragaîu^ (Sri Ramakrîshnashrama, Mysore, 1964) p» 

16 Dr» Shrikantha Shastri, op» cit»» pp» 66-68. fn 11» 12 

11» ÂdlidevaDanda, Mândukyopamsaé» p. 5. f e, 2 

IS» Br» Srikantfea Shastri, op. cit. pp. 66-68, fn. 11, 12 


thus could be uaderstood easily. The way in which the viewpoiBts re- 
gardiug différent aspscts of philosophy are put is coQvincïBg, critical 
and systematic. Fyâ/rjâna is another form of philosophical literature. 
It is calied tîppanî or tikâ also. As there were teachers who wrote 
bhasyas so aiso there were teachers who wrote iikus. It is difined thus : 

padacchedûh padUrîhoktîh vigraho vâkyayojana / 
aksepasya samiïdhânam vyskhyanam pancaïaksanam // ^^ 

It means : Vyâkhyana deals with splitting of words, connotation of 
words, splitting of compounds, arrangement of sentence and reply to the 
objection. This is fivefold characteristic of vyâkhyana. 

Thèse three forms deal mainly with the subject matter dealt in the 
suîras which are usually calied source literature or the sâstra texîs* 
Thèse three forms hâve their own functions to perform in explaining the 
texts. Each diflFers from the other. This is one group of forms of philo- 
sophical literature. This is a spécial group as it has quite a new object. 
This group cansists of vârîtika and prakarana. The foiiowing exposition 
makes this clear, 

The Laksanîka àtûrxQs vartiika thus: 

uktânuktaduruktânam clntâ yatra pravartate I 

tam granîhmn varîîikam prâhuh v^rîtikajïïa manlsinàh If^^ 

Vârîtîka is that which examines what has been told, omitted, or 
wrongly expressed in the original text. This is agréât tradition or 
philosophy thinking. \i was exîinct in the north during the seventh cen- 
tury and it was generated by a Kannadiga whose name is Trilocana It 
paved way for the new activity in Ânviksîki that broughtabout révolu- 
tion in the world of thought. We find another form which adds some* 
thing new to the existing knowledge of the texts. It is prakarana, It is 
defined as: 

sâstraîkadesasambaddham sâsirùk&ry&ntare sthîtami 
ahuh prakaranam nïïma granthabhedam vîpascitahU 

Pr^fcara«a deals with a portion of the text. 

Thus we see some of the important forms of philosophical litera- 
ture. This is ladian unique contribution to the world of philosophical 
literature» There is another form of philosophical literature which is 
a contribution made by Kannadigas during the eleventh and the twelfth 
centuries. Tho Vacana, is the form of literary style and it has been 

19, ibid., pp, 66-68 

20» KS,AbhyznksiT^ A Dîct. ofSkt:Grammar,s.v,Var^^ 


systematised by the thinkers nnâ h calîed sîhalakaiiusahîtya. This îs a 
new form of phîlosophical literature contributed by Vîrasaivism. The 
words sthala and katiu are taken to be synonymns respectîvely of the 
Sanskrit Brahman and sûtra^ Hence the Èhanubhavamîra sîates : 

sarvesâm sthUnabhuîatîvaïIayabhûîatvaîastatàh / 
tatîvmum mahadadmam sthalam îîyabhidhiyatejj 

Itmeaas: That which constitutes a substratum of the îaîtvas {htmg%) 
for their sustenance as well as for their dissolution is called sthala. It is 
further stated : 

ekam eva param brahma saccîdënandalaksanamj 
âivattaîvam sîviïcaryah sthalamityïïhurâdarât j f ^^ 

This purports : The Brahman whîch is one only and is characterised as 
existence, consciousness and bîiss, is Sivatî^ttva and is called Sthala by 
the Sivâcâryas. We fiod the sa me idea in the foUowmg Upaaisadic 
texts : 

yato vU imani bhUtam jayanîe / 

yena jmëni jîvantî / yat prayanîyabhîsamvisanti / 

tadvîjijnâsasva / tadbrahmetî / 

**Thatwhence thèse beings are born, that by which, when born, they live, 
thatinto whîch they enter at their death, try to kcow that. That is 
Brahman.*' 22 In Vîrasaîva literature the vacanas about the ultîmate 
principle are bronght in one place nnder one heading signifying the 
princîple. The systématisation îsknown by the term kattu m Vïraéaiva 
System and it corresponds to the suîra m the Vedantîc and other 
Systems, Thèse sthalakaifu texts gave scope for the later scholars to fill 
thegapor to develop some of îhe concepts or to interpret the matter 
from new points of view; This form of literature is found in Sanskrit, 
în Pâli, in Maaadhî, în Kannada and in other vernaculars. Sîhalakattu 
fiilfilled the object of the dharma-éïïstra and îhe iatîva-sâsrra 

There îs one more form of philosophical literature called sampa- 
dana whîch is similar to vâmika m Sanskrit literature. The samp&dana 
discusses the topîc which has been omittcd or not made clear in sthala* 
kaitu, Unlîke in th& vûrîîtka^ the method ia the sampadane is that of 
dialectic as ia the Dialogues of Plato. The discussion is very lively. 
This is a new form of philosophical literature aod is a new contribution 
made by ¥îrasaiva school of thought. There is a greatbulkof literature 
produced in the form of vyïïkkyana to the vacanas of the leaders of the 

2î. . Y.Nagesha Shastri, éivanubhavasUtrçm i^p. Î6-17, sts,'2,3. ■' ' 

2% Max Millier. The Upanisads'pt. Il, p. 64 (Dover Publication 1962). 


mystic movement in Karnataia. There are as many as Eve yyâkhyanas 
ù^XhQ vacanas oï Basavanna who led the movement. This shows the 
demand of the people and love for the vacanas of this particular mystic 
and social reformer. 

Vîrasaiva philosophers wrote Works in almosî ail traditional 
forms of philosophical literatnre and also creaîed new form of philoso- 
phical literatnre called sûmpadana\htidiXv.jt which is a new contribution 
to the forms of philosophical. literatnre. They hâve a unique place in the 
philosophical map of lodia. For the modem stndentsof philosophy 
this is a virgin field which attracts theîr attention. 



The most ancient grammar available to us is undoubtedly the San- 
skrit grammar outlined in Pânioi's AstâdhySyi. In brevityofform 
coupled with comprehensiveness of content, Pânini's work has certaWy 
no parallel. Ils prime necessity and usefulness in understanding other 
subjects hâve led to the formulation of the aiaxim 

The wonderful and almost superhuman intellectual skill displayed in 
this work has evoked great admiration and profound révérence for its 
author that hc is often referred to as bhagavân the divine. His comment- 
ator Patanjali toc is considered superhuman, an incarnation of Âdisesa, 
and his Mahsbhâsya as a work of such sterling worth that its proper 
study is declared as equal to ruling a kingdom. 

The importance is stressed again,jnsayingslike 

It stresses the practical utility in enabling the correct utterance of 
expressions. Statements of writers in other sâstraslike Jayantabhatta's 
may also be noted.i 


1. ATyayfl/MawM of Jayantabhatta, edited by Suryanarayana Sukla. Kashi Sans- 
krit Séries, No. 106. 1936, pp. 331-32. 


%ft ^ ^r^^^^f ^M ïï|f% ^ï^m T^xïg: Il 

They déclare vyïïkarana îo be highly pure and profouod by nature* 

Such encomium need not be considered as the expression of the 
characteristic révérence of the tradition-bound lodians. Western scho«« 
Jars too hâve recognîsed the importance of the Pânînîya. Léonard 
Bloomfield in his famous bock Language speaks of Pânini's grammar as 
"one of the greatest monuments of human intelligence''^ and states that 
"it describes with the rainutest détail every inflection, dérivation and 
composition and every syntactic usage of ils auther*s speech" and that 
**no other language to îhis day has been so perfectly described".^ Boeht- 
liflgk States that Pânini's grammar is in itskind a masterpieceof thefirst 
rank and the more thoroughly one studies it, the more one is struck by 
the acuteness and the successful mastery of the vast matter shown in it^, 
Whitney admils that the form of présentation in Pânini's work is a mira- 
cle ofingenuity"^ and Thierae finds the work on the whole admirable.^ 

Whitney further acknowledges the value of the associated phoncf** 
tics and states that '"this phonetic science is of extraordinary merit, 
which has called forth the highest admiration of modem scholars; noth- 
ing at ail approaching it has been produced by any ancient people; it has 
served as the foundatioû in no small degree of our own phonetics; even 
as our science of grammar and of language has borrowed much from 
India*'.^ Prof. J.F. Staal points ont the importance of the observations 
of Sanskrit grammarians in présent day linguistic studies in the West. 
**Gontemporary scholarship with in the philological perspective'% he 
saySj "continues to produce valuable results that are new to Western 
scholars though often perfectly well known to. Indian Pandits". And 
one of the reasons he gives for the récent revival of interest in Sanskrit 
grammarians is that *'the activities of the Indian grammarians are the 
closest parallel in history to contemporary linguistics'*,'^ thereby implying 

2. Language, npwYoïk, 19^3, p. II. 

3. From the préface to Boehtlingk's PânînVs Grammatîk cited by Barend Fadde 
gon in **Tlie mnemotechnics of Pânini*s Grammar, Acîa Orientaîia^ Gottingen 
VoU Vn, 1929. 

4. *The Study of Hindu Grammar and the Study of Sanskrit', American Journal 

5. The ïdcntityof the Vârttikakâra, lKii<3/2Catore, VollV,19^^^ 
f. Op. cit. 

7. J.F. StaaU A Reader on Sanskrii Grammarians, The MÎT Press, Cambridge, 

■,:■■,'•;■•.■ 1972, p,xri... 


the anticipations iaour aocient grammatical îreatises of the findings of 
modem linguistic science. 


Bat many other hâve fonnd fault with tbe Pâmniyan System, to some 
extent justifiably we should admît, and even some of those who hâve best- 
owed praise for certain aspects hâve heaped criticîFm for other aspects* 
William Jones found the sûtras of Panini, when studied without a com- 
mentary "dark as the darkest oracle". Colebrooke states : '*The studied 
hîQViiy oï ûiQ Pàftiniya sUtras renders them, in the highest degree, obs- 
cure. Even with the knowledge of the key to their interprétation^ the 
student finds them ambiguous. In the application of them when nnder- 
stood, he discovers many seeming contradictions; and with every exer- 
tion of practised memory, he niust expérience the utmost diflBculty in 
combining rules dispersed in apparent confusion through différent por- 
tions of Panini's eîght chapters''. He states again : "The apparent 
simplicity of the design vanishes in the perplexity of tbe structure, The 
endless pursuit of exceptions and of limitations so disjoins the gênerai 
precepts, that the reader cannot keep in vicw their intended connection 
and mutual relation. He wanders in an intricate maze; and the due of 
the labyrinth is continually siipping from his hands".^ This is typical of 
the Western attitude to which several others also hâve subscribed. For 
instance, Max Millier states : "The grammatical system of the Hindu 
grammarians is so peculiar, that rules which one should group together, 
are scattered about in différent parts of the manuals".^ Accordingto 
Whitney the only object aimed at in Panini's work is brevity at the sacri- 
jBce of everything elseJ^ Paul Thieme feels that Panini ''has overdone his 
îngenuity and partly fallen sacrifice to it," for *'he is so brief as to be 
often obscure and not seldom even illogical; he is so subtle as to be ambi- 
guous, and aotseldom even incompréhensible". ï* 

Such criticism is not confined to the Pîniniy an system or grammar 
fn gênerai, but is seen about the Dhâtus, Unàdi etc., and even about the 
real aim of the vàrttika and the bhïïsya, although some of thèse are ans- 
wered by the Western scholars thernselves^ Whiiney's statement is "that 
no alleged Sanskrit root can be accepîed as realunless it is supportedby 
such a use in the literary records of the language as authenticates ït".î2 

8 HT. Colebrooke, *Oa the Sanskrit and Prakrit Languages', Aslatîc Researches 

Vol. VIL 1803. 
9. Max Mullor, Sanskrit Grammar fût Begi fine rs, London, 1866, Introduction, 

10. Op. cit. 

11. Op. cit. 

12. Op. cit. 


It is coantered by Buhler who says that many of the Dhaîus not seen m 
Sanskrit literature should be taken to hâve been présent in the language 
if we want to account for some of the Dhâtus in Pralcrit and Pâli deri- 
ved from thera, and he gives several examples.^s Aod Westergard 
expresses the conviction that every forna in the Dhatupatha is genuine 
and wonld bc found sometime or other in inaccessible or noexplored 
Works. Many of the assumptions of Boehîlingk and others were severely 
criticised by Goldstockenî"^ But the latter himselfwas taken to task 
by several scholars, Weber in particular. There was also controversy 
regarding the relation amoagthe th ree miz/iiX viz., Pânini, Kâtyâyana 
and Patanjali. though the views of Kielhorn expressed in his well 
knownwork Kâtyâyana and Paîanjalf^ came to be generally accepted, 

R.G. Bhandarkar, who rightly considered àimself *an Indian 
scholarof the new stamp' set forth the merits as wel! as defects in the 
Western approach. He stâted^^ that '*in several cases, though not in 
ail, native students of Sanskrit haveagreater right to be listencd to 
than Eoropeans'*. On Kâtyâyana and PataSjali he stated : *'lhe 
only tenable theory is that Katyayana's workis an édition with notes, 
explanatory, critical, and snpplementary and thaï PataEjali's is a 
commentary on this édition, explainîng in détail the notes of Kâtyâ- 
yana, but discussing at length ail points connected with the System of 
Pânini, and with grammar generally, whether Kâtyâyana notices 
them or not, in a manner favourable or otherwise to his author. The 
object of both was the same, namely to teach grammar by following 
and explaining the System of PInini endeavouring to perfect it, cven 
though this sometimes requîred aremodelling of his sûtras or their entire 
refntatiott, and to complète il by supplying the omissions and bringing 

up the knowledge of Sanskrit grammar coaveyed thcreîn to their own 


As observed earlier, a part of the criticism against the Panîniyan 
System is, to some extent, justifiable. We do not get the sûtras ïn tht 
order in which we would like them to be. The technique underlying the 
arrangement and interprétation has to be mastered and this is not an 
easy task. One has to apply in graspîng the correct sensé of the suîras^ 

13. Georg Bahler, Tke Roots of the Dkâmpaîha not found înLitem îure. 

14* T» Goldstucker, Pânini, his place in Sanskrit Literuture fi^eprwt), Delhi, 1965. 

15. Varanasi, 1963. 

14 MîanAniiquary, YoUYÎ,tW,v^ ns* 

17. E.G>Bhandarkar: Âcirya, the friend of the Stndent, and the three Scaryas'* 
Indian Amiguary* YoU V* 1^16* 


notonly thc paribhïïsâs oTtnlc&o( interptetsition explicitly laid dowa 
by Pâniîii, but aiso those implied in his ruîes aad later on codified in 
Works iîke Purusottamadeva*s Jnâpakasamuccaya and Nàgeèabhatta's 
Parihhasendukekhara. The tcchnical devices adppted by Kàtyâyana and 
Patanjali, as aiso by the authors of the Ksàika hâve to be carefully 
understood and applied ; and some of thèse are the results of keen in* 
genuity to make the sUtras yield a sensé which will accommodate what 
is left ont as well as what may be the developments after the time of 
Pânini and thus make his work perfect enough wîth provision to 
embrace in itscif later developments aiso în the language. 

Thus, as we kuow, some sUtrns are splît into two in what is 
called yogavibhâga by which the first part may bc takcn with the prece- 
ding sutra or the second part wîth the succeeding sûtra or anuvrtti from 
a previous sUtras is got for one part alone. For example, ih^ sîitra 
saha supë (2.1.4) is split into saha and supS and the anuvrtti of 
samartha from a preceding jrwrra is got for the iBrst, so as to get the 
sensé that 2l. subanta can be compoundcd with a tinanta aiso in order to 
explain the Vedic usages like paryabhûsayat and anuvyacaïat with the 
accent noticed in thera. In fact ît is pointed ont that the viotàsaha 
hère serves the piirpose of indicating this yagavibhaga, as even without 
it the sensé subantam subantena samasyate can be got* At the same 
time, it is adtnitted that the Samasa with a tinanta should not be 
considered as of gênerai applicability but restricted to a few instances, 
because the yogavibhâga is meant for application only whcre we want 
it {(yogavibhâgasya îqtasiddhyarthatvat). 

As in the case of the word saha hère, the explicit mention of a 
Word :in a sûtra when it could be got by anuvrttîy is taken as servîng a 
spécial purposc. Thus * la faU' in lafah satrsënacsvaprafhamasamdnâdhi" 
karane (3.2.124) when it could be got from the preceding tulo vartamâne 
lai is explained as for showing that the sufiSixes ia/f and sanac can be 
applied ïnprathamasumanâdhikaraftya aiso certain cases an in sanbrâkma^ 
nah.^^ The Mah^bhasya htre suggests a yogavibhâga into lafah 
satrsanacau and aprathamasamânSdhîkarûfte and taking the anuvftti of 
^vibhdsa* from nanvorvibhasa (3.2.121) for the former, ïhc bimsya 
makes the substitution of thèse suffixes optional in prathamasamunïï-^ 
dhikaraïf a and compulsory foi: the rest*^^ 

The case of the Word samartha drawn into the part saha noticed 
above, has to be changed from the Nominative to the Instrumental to 
get subantam samarthena saha samasyate. In the rule striyâh pumvad 

iS. Seo Sîddhântakaumudî xindùT this Siltrûm 

v:'' •,'109— ■■I5': ■■'■';•' 


bhî^sitapmhsk^danûn oie; (6.3.34), bhasîtapumskàdanun is a compound 
Word given with the Genitîve case-ending dropped in the end and rctaî- 
nîng the Ablative case-endîng in the preceding cornpooent agaînst the 
rulesof compound formation. The avîbhaktikanîr des a is seen in many 
other sûtras like sr sihîre (3.3.17) where sr is given wîthout the Ablative 
althoiigh the meaning is 'for the root jrr' {sarteh) nnd eka îaddhite ca 
(6.3.62) where eka is given without thereqaired Genitive singular ending^ 
In the Jatter, incîdentally, itshould be noted that the word ekasabdasya 
thus got shonîd be qualijSed by strîpratyayUntasya for the reason that, 
otherwîse, the shortening ordained by th.\s sutra will not hâve scope for 

Praslîsiamrdesa or considering a letter in a sUtra b,s havîng another 
also attached îo it, is resorted to in several câses, The ruîe prâptapanne 
cadvùtyaya (2.2 A) is taken as having akaraprasiesam 'dvîtiyaya' (as 
dviiiyaya + a) according to Bhattoji and after pmptëpanne (zs prSpm^ 
panne+d) according to PataSjali, the absence of prakrtîbkïïva in the 
latter being explaîned as 5f£?ii/ra by Kaiyata. This is to lay down a as an 
unmde&a for thèse two words hère so that in instances like jivîkdm prapta 
stn, thenecessary shortening canbe obtained to get the îorm 'prapta-- 
jîvîkn'- Tn the rule gl^jîsthasca ksnuh{3.2A39) PataSjalî observes that 
the suffix hcre should be read as gsnu (the change of ^ into k in the sutra 
being due to cartva by kharî cd) as otherwîse In sthdsnuî, will be substitu- 
ted foris by the rule ghumasthaetc. (6 4.66); But because such a change 
will get ^î/«a in 'jîsnd and îf in *bhiïsmi\ since the prohibition of thèse is 
only with regard toftzr pratyayas in the ûtst hy knitî ca (lj.î5)and în 
the second by kyukahkitî (12 Al), the bhïïsyakâra suggests that thèse 
two Sûtras should be taken as havîng the praslesa of g whichy of course, 
become fe, thereby rcading the sûtras m kknitica Rnd âryukah kkîtî, thus 
extending the prohibition to gît pratyayas bX^o. But how the vîews regar- 
dîng prasUsianîrdesa differs is évident from the fact that Vâmana in the 
KïïMkU on glïïjîsîhasca ksnuh accomplishes ^stMsnu* by adopting a diflfe- 
rent pr aklesa m^mely ë în stha (t^'ken as stha+ë, the for m sth^ being what 
we get when the compound glâjîsthah is analysed) and înterpreting that 
when ksfîu is applîed stha retaîns its a ending so that the form is only 

Just as some vamaj are thus îBken b,s praslisfas în certain cases, 
some are taken as luptas in othet cases or as formîng part of the words 
the mseî ves . As a ty pical exampl e may be taken PataSjali *s d ef encc o f th e 
expression ^anudattam padam[ in the rule anudwttam padam ekavarjam 

20. VSmana's view îs given in the JVjSiSrûunder 1*1*5# 


(6J.158) where it might better hâve bcen anudattah pade or anudutîâh 
padosya. Pâtaîjali says that anudatîa mean» 'having anudatîa svaras^ by 
trcatÎBg amasup suffix ta be lupta or by taking thc final a in anudâda hère 
as the possessive suJBBx a^ obviously thc onc laîd dowa by arka adibhyo'ac 
(5.2.127), arsa ïïdî bcîng an akrîigana. 

Sorae words and partiales in certain sUtrasB^tcgiYen spécial signifi- 
cânce to suit the interpréta lion. In îhe ruJe ytprQîfsedhe param karyam 
(1.4,2) laying down the principle that when two conflicting rules présent 
thtmselves together in an opération, thc succecding rule shonld be pre- 
ferrcd to the preccding one, the woià para is g iven the metning îsta (the 
desîred one) by Patanjaii to explain instances whcre the preceding rule 
has to be applied and not the succeeding onc. He says- 

^s^T=# m^^^i I ^w^ 'qt ^w ^:^ çRr, \^t HTTÎrfè W^ \ 

The particle ca is taken in anuktasamuccayarîha comprchending whatevcr 
is necessary but not explicitly stated, in many cases by Kasîka. Thus, 
<^or instance, by the force of ca in phalegrahiratmambharisca (3,2.26) the 
scope of the sutra is extended to kuksimbhari and udarambharî and in 
nâdimusfyoica (3,2,30) îoghafi, khart and v^r^ to account for forms like 
ghatindhamah vatandhamah etc. The word îîi \n th^ txiïc sakhyûsisviîi 
bhasQyam (4.1.62), Haradatta points ont, should be read aftcr bhâsâyam 
and its sensé îs /?rafc5'ra, and thus makes ih^ sutra applicable to Veda 
also; thc word bhâsâyam is to show that while the forms sakhî anâ assfisvi 
are corapulsory in Bhâsa, it is optional in Veda se that we can justify 
there the fortes sakha dixxd aiisu. The saroe /// in îadasya tadasmîn synd 
i7/ (5.1.16) is taken by Patanjali, and folio wing him by Haradatta, as 
meanîng vivaksd 'what is desircd^ that is to say, what îs understood by 
the people, sô that we can hâve prssadïyS bhumîh *a place having several 
mansions' but we cannot hâve prasddiyo devadaîtoh in îhe sensé of *Deva-^ 
datta having mansions* because thîs is not so understood by pcople, but 
would raean only *Devadatta who is in the mansion'.^i An extension of 
this prîncipîe is the anabhidhsna or non-usage. By karmanyan (3.2.1) we 
get kumbham karotitî kumbhakarah, but not Edîtyam paiyamî adîtyadarsah 
This, therefore, présupposes a good knowledgeof usage for understand- 

Ali this shows that there is some justification for thc criticisna 
levelled against the Pininîyan System. But wemay remeber that the 

21. SeeKaiyata - ^ #5R!r l%q-^ «T^ cf^r ^mR %^i \ ^ "^ -^t^i '^m% 


grammariaas themselves are aware of the difficulties and admit that 
much dépends on interprétation. It is their maxim vyakhyënato visesa-- 
pratîpattîh^ na hi sandehadalafcsanam, The aphorîsms were possibly 
meant as aid to memory of what is learnt from the teacher direct. 


So much about the précepte Let us now look into practîce. If wc 
examine literature^ even confining to what is decidedly post-Pânîniyan, 
we find numerous instances of violation of the rules, Even if wê take a 
single poet, Kaiidâsa for example, we can find in abundance forms and 
usages which are against the rules of grammar, though commentators 
are seen to strain their nerves to find out some justification, often result- 
îngoaly in leaving the impression that the explanation is far fetched and 
mostly unconvïBcing. We may take a few instances. 

(1) The Word dûîî is unwarrantedly shortened in severaî cases as 
in dUtîkrtamargadarkanQh {Raghuvaipsa, XIX. 23) where Mallinâtha admits 
that it is duc to exigencies of mètre, 22 but its repeated occurrence in at 
least four other places^s makes one feel that the poet takes itas a normal 
feature. A similar shortening of F^We/rf occurs in vaîdehibandhorhr^ 
dayam vîdadre (Raghu. XIV. 33) and Mallinâtha's explanation that it is 
by the rule nyâpossâmjndchandasor bahulam (6.3.33)24 îs unsatîsfactory, 
because 'vaidehibundhu^ is not a samjnâ and is not used so, 

(2) We find the form 'vïsrâma' in vîsrïïmam labhaîâm idam ca sithi^ 
lajyabandham asamaddhanuh {Sakuntala^ IL 6) which is against the raie 
nodattopadesasya mântasyânïïcameh (7.3,34) which prohibits vrddhi to 
roots like iram which are udatta and end in m. It is perhaps on the basis 
of usages îikje this that the later grammarians like Vardhamana postulate 
yau sramer va, and Ramacandra observes amcamvîsramâf^ yen kecit. 

(3) In kàmaysnasamavasthayatul^m (Raghu.XÏX. 50) wc get 
^kamayana" înstead of 'kamayamâna^ the normal form by âne muk (7.2.82) 
Vâmana in his kâvyslankarasmravftti takes ît as a form that has establi- 
shed itself in lanuage^ but Mallinâtha takes shelter under the dictum 
*anîtyam agamasâsanam\ 

23, Raghu, XIX. 18, 33, XVIII. 53; Kum. IV. 16 


(4) lastead of sïïrvarika by kâlïïiihan (4.3. U) we get karvaraviith 
the suffix dha in sllrvarasya tamaso niqiddhaye {Kumarasambhava^ VIII. 58). 
To explain this Saranadeva in the Durghofavrtîi resorts to a yogavibhïïga 
of the sutra as kaîâî and ihan thereby enabling also other suJBSxes in the 
sensé of tatra bhavàh to words implying tîme, 

(5) In sa saînyaparîbhogena gajadanasugandhim {Raghu. IV. 45)^ 
the form sugandhî is used which is justifiable only if the smell is inhérent 
or intimate in the object by the mie gandhasyedutpûtisnsurabhibhyoh [SA, 
135) readwiththe vârttîka und&v li gandhasyettvetadekânîagrahanam^ 
whereas hère the smell îs acquired. The explanation of Mallinàtha is 
simply nîrahkusïïh havayah and he cites simîlar usages from Mïïgha and 

(6) In tâïaih sinjadvalayasubhagaîh (Meghasandesa, II. 16), 
whîch is the reading according to most commentanes and naanuscripts, 
although Mallinàtha has kînjâvalayasubhagaîh the form sinjat (in éaîranîa) 
îs incompatible with the nature of the root sîji avyakte sabde which is 
stmanepadu The explanation sought to be given is by the feeble nyïïya 
anudmetvakrlam mmanepadam anityam. 

(7) Another instance of parasmaipada for âtmanepada we get în 
maithilim bhartur ûhkemvUaîtm (Maghu, XII. 38). By ner visait (1.3. 17) 
WQshonld gtt âtmanepada and so tho iatranta is in violation of this 

Even thèse random examples out of a large number, mostly culled 
from the Raghuvamia, are enough to indicate how even the king of Sans- 
krit poets does not consider himself fully bound by the Vyakarana sûtras. 

The grammarian-poets also can be scen to hâve violated the rules 
at times. In the Bhatfikâvya even the very word with which it commen- 
ces namely aôAwr in 

can be poînted out to be incorrect in the context, because the king livcd 
long long ago and far away from the vision of the poet and what is 
required is the lit form babhûva and not the lun form abhilt. In 

U %: ! ^ I i^ ! ^^ fl^ÇfR ^: I (VI. U) 

theVooative g?? with final vowel shortened in the word g?T: is, no 
doubts, a lapse as stated by Bhattoji' DIksita, beçause it is not a sirïpra" 


ij^ayantawarêto mtrit shorfemfig by gostriyorupasarjaHasya (1.2.48) 
hm ^ compound smûbhanïï bhrUryasyâh sa. 

Nârlyanâbhatta in hîs Dhâtukavya illustrâtes scveral roots which 
are comidercd as confiocd to Vcda. Of the tweîve roots fronr ghrto gE 
at thc ead of the Juhotyadigaffa which are decltxed to bc chïïndasa m thc 
I>hmupmha, Pataijali takes one, f , in bhâsS also. But four more oamely 
ghf, bMsa, iuramd dhana are taken by Nîrâyanabhatta as allowablc m 
bhEs^ ,- 

îî^^#: ^rt^ifsî^- \ (II. 55) 

Bîâhln and vmin are spoken of as chïïndasa in thc bhasya {dïdhivevyos" 
chandBvimymvat, nnàm L 1, 6.); but we gct them îllnstratcd in 

^o^H^I^4^ WimW J (IL 52) 

He uses in waiaddrsa (L 63), the valat.katranta for thc root valu, which 
îs gîven in ail versions of the Dhmupâtha on\y in thc atmanepada. He 
uses the form durïabhya m T^ ^gf^«(^rîffq- gôT'^Tçî'ïï f^^^à' 
in hîs famous NarSyamya (L 2), against the rnl^'-içaddussusu krcchra'- 
krechrwrthesu khal (3.3.126) and justifies it in his Prakrîyasarvasva by the 
rulc-kriyafyuio bahulam (3V3.113). Again in the Rëjasïïyaprabandha 
he has the form tairape în //# for the root trapus lajjïïysm instOiSid of trepe 
.the form sanctioned by rule. 

Grammatical lapses are poîntcd ont even in the sûtra and bhïïsya. 
Even in the vcry first rule vrddhirsdaîc there must bc change of the final 
palatal into the guttural by coh kuh (5. 2. 30). The absence of this, as 
also of similar other cases, is expîaîned by Patanjali by the blanket 
dîctiîm that the sûtras should bs considered like Yeda -- chandovat sutrdnl 
bhavanti In janikartuh prakrtîh (1.4,30) the compound îs against the 
raie îrjakabhyam kartarî (2.2. 15) which prohibits the compound for- 
mation between a word in the Genitive and one ending in the suffixes 
tfc and aka. Strangely this very usage of Pânînî is taken as indicative 
of the latter sutra beîng not unîversally applicable. In bandhuni bahu- 
vrihau (6.1. 14) eveu the gender is violated. In the bhasya we see anyaîhU- 
kftva coditmm &nyathakrtva parihïïroh. This seems to vîolate anya- 
thmvamkaîhamîtîhamm siddhâprayagascet (3.4.27) according to which 
the form should bc anyathskëram, not myat&hkrivn. We fînd in kosïï- 
vanumanah^ the word ammtana uscd in thc masculine for which there îs 


îîo sanction. The classification of words into vaîdika and laukîka in the 
MaMbhasya is found fault with since a very large number is common to 
both. While the illustration shonld be similar fox both, we see a sen- 
tence sanno devirabhîstaye for vaîdika and a few words gauh, akvàk 
purusdh, hastï for laukîka, Words peculîar to the Vedic language like 
grhhnamî, dadhara, dattviya should hâve been given as exanaples for 
vaîdika and those entrent in the classical longue alone shonld hav@ been 
given for laukîka, unlike those given which are common to both. 
Pataîïjali déclares ihat it is not possible that even a single syliable in the 
Asiâdhyïïyi can bc considered meaningless - 

Still he rejects several sutras themselves as unnecessary, changes some 
of them, splits a few into two and twists many ofthem, being com- 
pelled to do 3o to yield the desired sense;^^ 


Some of thèse as well as numerous other aberrations of a similar 
nature are no tic ed by the Sâstrakaras themselves, Among them, the 
later Vaiyâkarànas try to find out some explanation or other for them 
even if the explanation is not fully acceptable, as we hâve seen, The 
conservatîve section of the gramraarians tries to explain everything on 
XhehdLÛs of iho trlmunî vyëkaranam and discard as incorrect, nngram- 
matical and unacceptable whatever surpasses their exegetîc ingenuity. 
The libéral and progressive section, however; cxplains usages not in* 
conformity with tho trîmunî^hnt on thebasis of other Systems of grammar. 
The Naiyîyîkas accept the authority of Vyàkarana-sâstra in gênerai; 
but the Mîmâmsakas do not accept its authority and question its validity, 
Let us bricfly notice the objections raised by the Mimamsakas. 

Kumarila in the TaniramrîtikasùtïoMsly objects to the authority 
of Vyâkarana. He even ridicules Bhartrhari's statement 

And he suggests its change as 

25. Vide Kshitis Chandra Chatterji, *Critics of Sanskrit Grammar', Journal of 
the Department of Letters, Vol. XXIV, Calcutta, 1914. 

attra^antifli (Àiâalîsram Ed. 1970:' Vol^ H/ pjp. 199-200) under :sS/ra, I 
■ iii. 24. . >■ ■ - ' > ■" ^ ' 


Parthasârathi Misra in the Èâsîradipika enumerates the reasons for 
discardîng the authority of Vyakarana în the kïïrîka - 

Tbe Vedanga Vyikarana should be considered as the Vyikarana 
pretaining to Vedic litcrature as laid down in Pratisâkhyas and the text 
tasmâd brshmaftena niskaranam sadangd vedo^ dhyeyo jneyaàca as relating 
toîtandnott© the laukika vyakarafia w\nc\ is claimed to be uscd on 
ÈisÈaprayoga but actually ignores many forms and usages în the Kalpa 
siitras, Smrtis and Itihâsas, which are at variancc with what it lays 
down. The rulès are not infallible in thtt they hâve bcen subjected to 
modifications and additions and deletions and thèse changes are 
accepted because of yathoîtaram munînUm prëmànyam. The prayojanas 
for the study of the grammar that are ennumcrated in 

are hardly acceptable. Raksà or préservation in correct form is not done 
by grammar but by the preceptor who sees that the pupils pronounce 
the words correctly. Uha or application to the yikrtiyâga what is laid 
down to the prakrdyaga with the necessary variations, covcrs othcr 
things than what relates to grammar, as for instance samskUra, and ail 
thèse things can be known from the practice of Yajnikas. and Vyakarana 
hère is superfluous. The sadanga inthe Vedic injunction br^hmanena 
niskUranam etc., may well be-sr«//, linga etc, and even if it is the 
Vedàiga it can only be Vedic grammar. Lâghava or simplicity in 
acquiring knowledge also is offthe mark, since quitea long time is 
required for mastering grammar itself. Asandeha orremoval of doubts 
which arise in sentences is done by Mïmâmsa and not by Vyakarana 
which deals with words alone. When thus even the mz^m prayojanas are 
not there, what need is there to think of the subsidiary prayojanas 7'^'^ 
As Kumarila States. 

Jayantabhatta in his Ny^yamanjarl^ at the close of the Pramana" 
prakarana expounds in détail the arguments of the Mîmâmsakas against 
Vyakarana, although in the form of a pûrvapaksa for which he gives his 
own answer. At the close of this pûrvapaksa the arguments advanced 
are summed up and we may note its main content : 

27. Éâstradïpika (NSP, Ed. 1915, pp. 43 ff.) under sûtras, 24-29, 

28. Tantravarttîka, op. cit. ibid. (p« 202). 


Vyakarana has no finality in itself whatsoever. Its imperfections 
are quite apparent in that commentators exert themselves to find out 
what cxactiy îs said, what is omitled and what is wrongly stated; that 
objections are raiscd on the basis of the présence of an extra mâ/rcf or 
varna m a sutra; that what is drawn as an example on the basis of a 
prescription is of no avail as it is not found in popular usage; that where 
an example cannot find a place in the list for which a particuiar opéra- 
tion is ordained, the list itself is taken as akrtigana open to accoramo- 
date additions; that very frequently an opération is takeo as takîog 
eJBFect variously (bahulam) and so on. Charges of ambiguity and 
inadequacy levelled against it also cannot be easily set aside. Even if 
we argue that although Pâninî and the commentators do r.ôtexpound 
the System well, there may ariseothers with sharper intellect and keencr 
insight who wonld raeet the deficicncies and rectify the defects^ we 
should be aware that thèse, in turn, may be found fault with by cleverer 
people and they too by stil! cleverer and there can be no end to this 
process. As a resuit of such imperfection, inadequacy and non- 
finaîity, the science of gramraar should be considered as a chronic 
maiady that lasts through out lîfe. It is worthy of pursuit by only those 
who are possessed of some evil spirit, afraid of royal punishment or 
cursed by the parents. The rules and commentaries go with objects 
that bring about stupidity even in the intelligent-^^» 

€^: , ^îPT52T: Î3^cllfê;^i%^53f%, îf^^^ ^^d<^S# ïrf%^2Tf5^, t^ïï:^rs^- 

ï^izi^ïifî^îT^orïi; L .......... .5#q^ 

î^: î^ %OT ^rm: 5^ 


This trend has coatinaed down to the présent day as can be seen 
from the fallowing extract from the editorial in a récent issue ofthe 
magazine Sarvagandhë from Locknow (May-June 1978) : 

We may now examine the attitude of the VaiySkaranas thera- 
selves. Vyâkaraaa is not identical with Paninïya, Th ère are other 
Systems, some of which are later, some perhaps contemporaneous with 
itandafcwat least earlier, though many of thèse hâve paled into 
insîgnificance and some gone into oblivion being obscured by îts 
superior radiioce. As we fcnow, Panini himself mentions several earlier 
writers like Âpisali, Gârgya, Bharadvaja, Sakalya and Sphotâyana and 
adfflîts their views as optlonal to his own, PataSjali cites post-Pâniniyan 
schools like Saunigas and Bharadvajtyas, but he tries toeke ont with the 
Pwwf-.ywfm5 îhemselves to get ail the desired forms, though in this 
process he takes high liberties. The aothors of the Kâsika draw freely 
from the Cândravyâkarna to snpply the deficîencies in the Paninîyan 
System conséquent on the developraent in the language after PataSjali 
till its own time. The F/'dAr/);0fc(3Mmwif of Ramacandra attempts an 
absorption into the Pâniniyan systera of whatever is worthy of acce- 
ptance from theppintofviewofform or dérivât ion in non-Paniniyan 
Works like Sarvavarman's KmaMra, Hemacandra's ÈabàmusUsana^ 
BopsiâoY^ s Mugdhabodhattc.y^nd the Prasada, the commentary on it 
byVitthakj draws even from a wider source. 

But the attitudeofPm^rfvàMMmîirfîevokedtwo différent reactions 
in the scholastic period whiçh followed it, one a severe conservatism 
represented by Bhattoji Dikfita, and the other a lîvely liberalism repre- 
sented by Niràyanabhatta. Bhattoji felt the inroads made into the 
Pâniniyan systera as unwarranted and therefore to be resisted, that 
Vyakarana is trimuni 2LQâ nothing else. His attempt was to establish 
the supremacy of the /«nwftmya and to encompass witfain the frame-work 


dôvised by them whatever Is possible among thc additions and altérations 
based oa other Systems, even if it involves strange interprétations and 
impjses strain on the texts; and to discard as invalid ail that défies such 
ingenuity. In the SiddhMnîakaumudî hc expounds the trîmunî Vyâkarana 
in thls way and in Praudhamanoramâhe atlacks Ramacandra and Vitthala 
for their observations based on non-Pininiyan sources. ^^ Narâyana- 
bhattaj his contemporary, chose to purstic thc line of Prakriyâkaumudï^ 
being convinced that thc lead giveo by it is in the right direction and its 
tnethod worthy of emluation and expansion. In his; Prakrîyâsarvasva 
which is a work like the Siddhantakaumudi we find hîm standing on the 
Pâninîyan System but drauing upon a much wider source to secure 
fullness with regard to vocabulary aod idiom, admitting inîo it what is 
acceptcd by non-Paniniyan Systems but untenable according to the 
orthodox Pâniniyan schooL To him practice is as important as précepte 
and evcn with regard to precept he is not prcpared to swear by the three 
sages but to look upon others also as no less authoritativc. He says - 

îTî%5 ^f^ § Pf^crrlïï ^W^ mmm- ^m\ i 

''Some say that only observations of Pinini are authoritatire and 
notthose of other grammarians like Candra and Bhoja. This is an 
extremely nairow view because the others are also very learned men 
and they would never say anything without proper basis. A particular 
System may be more popular than others due to its own superior 
intrinsic worih; but that does not raean that the other Systems are not 
authorîtative; for, before the time of Pânini obvîously it was other 
Systems that were in vogue. Even Panini approves of the views of 
earlier grammarlans, and when there is a conflict of views, we hâve only 
to take both as correct and adopteither. Panini frâmed his rules after 

30. For cxamples see Yi.^^ Trivedi's Introduction tohîs édition of Prakriyëkaumudï* 
Part I. Bombay Sanskrit Séries No* 78, 1925» 

3tt Nlrayana Bhatta's Apanwïyaprâmânyasâdhanam (SVUGRÏ Ed. I968j pp. 1 
. •and"?* ; 


exaiBining numerous works and usages. His Oinissions were subsequently 
Boticed by Katyayana. PataSjali resîored what was left outevenby 
Kâtyâyana; aad writers like Bhoja enuncîated their rules incorporating 
what was uûiioticed even by PataSjali but seen in popuîar usage and 
earlier works". 

Iti elaboratioaof tha idea in thèse two slokas, Narâyanabhatta 
bas writtea a separate work, the Apânmîyapramiïnatâ. Therein he says : 

**[t is only psople who consider themselves scholarly without 
reatly having the necessary wide learning ihat consider the words of the 
munitraya aloae as authoritative; their outlook deserves little commen- 
datioîî since there is uothiag to show that the words of Candra and 
others are not so. Usages not consistent with the grammar of the 
munitraya are found in the works of great upholders of tradition like 
Srïsaùkara, Murârimisra, Srîharsa, Vidyaranya and others; vaîdikoîtamas 
like Bop'ideva and Ramacandra incorporate numerous apanmîyasabdas 
in their works; Prakriyëkaumudi is accepted as authoritative in ail 
places; and Systems like the Sàrasvata are foHowed in the north. Ail 
this shows that learned mcn hâve accepted the authority of Vyâkaranas 
other than the Paninîya, There is nothing in the work of the three 
sages to show that whatsver is outside their fold is unauthoritative, We 
certainly approve of the superiority of the Paninîya; what we disapprove 
is only the view that the other Systems are not valid. Every System is 
valid like evary other, Even PataSjali simply says that Vyakarana 
should b^ studied and not Paninîya, As he bas stated, it is laksya and 
laksam that togeîfaer constitute Vyakarana, in some cases rules are 
framedon the basis of the observed usages and in others the usage is 
determined on the basis of the rules. In the former case sîsiaprayoga 
is the criterion; and îf a particular System records a usage not noticed 
by another with which we may be more familiar^ it should be accepted 
and even if it disagrees with what is found in the latter; option should 
begiven between them. Authors like Bhoja wrote their treatises after 
fully mastering the works îike the bhâsya and, in addition, carefuUy 
examining the other Systems and closely observing current usages; and 
so they are as authoritative as the Paninîya. Inspiîe of this, if some 
one fiûds it possible to explain on the basis of îrimuni, some form which 
appears to be non-Paniniyan, we need not hesitate to accept the expia- 
nation, however laboured it may be, but that does not set aside the other 
Systems as superfluous or ïnvalid."32 

We find hère the emphasis to be jointly on rule and usage. Rule 
should direct usage; at the same time it should modify itself in response 

32t s* Venkitasubramania îyer» Narâyanabhatta* s Frakrîymarvasva - À Crîtkal 
study, (Trîvandrum, 1972) pp, 309-312, 


to growing usage. Langaage îs a growîng pheaomenon and whatever 
passes into parlance mast be admitted iato it. Forms or meanîngs which 
violate the grammar of the language relating to a partîcular stage of its 
growth should not be coasidered incorrect at a différent stage. ISÏor 
should usages in literature that hâve continued from an earlier stage 
unfettered by the rigid rules of formai grammar be frowned opon* 
That is why grammarians iike Nârlyanabhatta with a progressive outlook 
emphatically déclare themselves against those who brand as incorrect 
even usages by great poets, if thèse happen to be outside the scope of 
Paniniyan grammar, Hesays- 

The aberrations from the Pâninîya we corne across in no small 
number in thé works of eminent poets lîke Kâlîdlsa need not be con- 
strued as disregard for it; but regard for usages current in their times 
and as continuance of the forms that prevaîl in abundance iB the 
Mahabhsrata, Ramayana, Manusmrti and a host of similar other Works, 
They only show the respect of thèse poets for the great writers of old, 

Although Sanskrit is considcred as a dead language in the sensé 
that it is not widely spoken in everyday life anywhere, literary and 
scholastic activity in it has continued down to the présent day, and^» as 
a living language in that sensé, changes hâve corne about in it. Dictâtes 
of idiom and convenience of usage subordinate, tosome extent, some 
înjunctions of grammar. The nice distinctions in the use oftenses and 
moods are not always observed. For the past tense, the Imperfect, aorîst 
and perfect are used alike. Several transitive verbs are used as intransî- 
tive and vice versa. Atmanepada roots occur in parasmaipada torm . 
Particîples figure wh ère they are not ordained. Words are seen in new 
meanings. Idîoms change the order of words. The so called *defects' 
thus become a natural feature in the history of the language: Literature 
qld and new abound in *solecisms*. A scholarly exposition ofthispro- 
blem and a classified list of sentences containingwbat are called 
apasabdas Vf & g^t in Pandit Gharudeva S^stri' &SabdWpasabdaPiveka. But 
uabridled liberty with the language should be checkfd lest it should 
make it look unlike what it is. 

33* Praknyâsarvasvam» Ed,K. Sambasiva Sastry, pt» II, (Triv^ndri^m) 1938, p» 82. 



A modero outlook on this ancient grammar bas been developed 
and intease activity ata critical examioation started by what I may 
caîl 'The Poona schooJ of Sanskrit grammarians' constîtutcd of 
scholars like Acharya V.E Limaye, Dr. S.D. Joshi, Dr. B.G. Palsule, 
Dr. S.D. Laddu and others. Being awarc of the growing înterest on the 
part of linguisticians in our grammatieal treatiscs that bas led to the 
postulation of théories based on the ideas and concepts available in 
thcm (as for instance, Chomsky's thcory of structures which bas close 
simjlarityto our karaka), and convinced that thèse words should be 
iotcrpreted with considération to tradition but with an objective approach 
frce from the obsession of the notions ot divinity and infallibility in the 
seer-trio in order to présent what is available in as pristinc a form as 
possible, thèse scholars exercise themscîvcs in probing deep into the 
basic texts. Acharya Limaye's massive and magnîficent Critical Studies 
on ihe Mahabhësya is a typical product of this activity. Profcssor Joshi*s 
MahSbhSsya séries gives a thorough exposition and holds a powerful 
intellectual torch to look deep into the bhïïsyabdhi. Professor Palsule's 
studies on the Dhâtupathas executed with an acute perspective serves to 
solve numerous problems relating to this important ancillary. 
Dr, Laddu's penetrating examination of the primary suffixes dealt with 
in the bhïïsya shows a new method in assessing the additions and modi- 
fications iû vocabulary. Professor Devasthali's critical and systematic 
study of the PhifsUtras immenîscly helps us îo know the correct forms of 
the suffixes thèse lay down and the words to which they are to he applied. 
Prof. K-V. Abhyankar who gave us the valuable Dictionary of Sanskrit 
Grammar, has also given us a number of studies among which the one on 
the elusive phonèmes R and L deserves spécial mention, A dispas- 
ssionate search and logical conclusions are discernible in thèse works. 

Thèse scholars make themselves bold to suggest in their own way 
additions and deletions in the texts of the sutras and vmtikas. The 
pancasûtri beginning with tad asîsyam samjmpramanatvat (1,2, 53-57), 
generally considered as forming the keystone of Pânini's work since it 
indicates the importance to be given to conventional usage, is pointed 
outby Professor Palsule as an early interpolation in the Asiadhyayi,^^ 
following Faddegon^^s ^^ot becausc this part of the text is not nccessary 
butbecause its structure does not fit in with the rest of the work, 
although Pataîjali comments on the first suîra in this group. Dr. Joshi 
observes that the rule akathitamca (1.4.51) must hâve been wrongly 
added to the Astâdhy^yi and argues ont his point at great length.^^ 

34- 'An Interpolated passage in the Astâdhyayi' Annais of the Bhandafkar Orkutat 

Research InsL, Vol XXX, pp* 135-44* 
35. Studies on Pânini's Grammar, Amsterdam, 1963, pp. 57-69» 
36» CASS Studies, Number 3, Poona, 1976, pp, 59-71. 


Acharya Limaye points out the need for a rule vasau ca gandharve after 
mîîre carsau (6.3. 130) to account for the ward 'Visvavasif; a Vârttika 
dinîsca sodakyarîhah after stome davîdhih pancadasadyarîhah (Var. iinder 
(5.1. 57-58) to get the word sodasîn and suggcsts additions to several 
sutras and Varttikas like anjana in gandhasyeduîpûti- surabhîbyah (5,4. 
135), yathin m sasfhyâh patîpuîraprsfha-pârapadapayasposesu (8-3.53) 
and duhkha in gajasahïïyïïhyam ca under gramajanabandhusahàyebhyastal 
(4.2. 43)-37 He convincingly argues that the sUtra (6.1.121) generally 
seen as avapathasi ca should reaily be apavaîhasï ca en the basis of the 
form and accent seen in Vedic passages.^» Dr. Laddu suggests that the 
bhasya passage kâlamâtre hyanyepî pratyay^ drsyante under the rxile 
nvidtrcau (3.Î. 133) should actually be kâlamâtre' pyete pratyayâ drsyante. 
Exaraples can be multiplied ^but this îs enough to indicate the modem 
trend and the outlook adopted. 

Sanskrit grammatical literature is a great treasure. It enshrînes 
the crystallised wisdom of men of great vision and of hîgh intellectual 
calibre rightly considered as seers. To the primary trio consistîng of 
Pânini, Kityâyana and Patanjali, we may add a secondary trio con- 
sisting of Bhartrhari and Jayiditya-Vamana. Their otitput is remarka- 
ble and achievement commendable. But they do not claim to hâve said 
the last word on anything. So to adopt a spirit of bîind vénération for 
them and look upon ail their utterances as gospel to the extent of being 
oblivious of whal language itself exhibits and ignoring what other 
authorities hâve to say, is to dîsplay incapacity to discrîminate between 
truth and error; to justify lapses is to demonstrate scholarly ingenuity 
but linguistic imbecility. We are proud of their high achievements, 
keen observation, wonderful analysis and surprising anticipation of 
modem théories. But to read into their writings ail that we would like 
them to contain is to impose on them unnecessary strain; to reject as 
unworthy whatever is not explicitly or împlicitly found in them is to do 
a disservice to their ideals. 

37. Crîticaî Studies on the Makathâsya^HoshiarpuT, 1914^ [But Cf, Pânîni VI, iii. 
128, for v/iFôva^tt; F5r/f/^a5 (as foundin the JCffiiAû) NOv3 under VI, iiî, 109, 
Nos. U2undG^xV/i/SBzndalsoTainirïyasam^^ Vî, vi, lUl and Bhatta 
Bhâskara thereunder, for ^^^5i//ï; etc. — Bd.] 

38. Visweswaranand Indoîogîcal Journal, Hoshîarpnr. Vol. V, pp. 193-95. 

Mrs. m MIT A DUTT 


When the European scholars took up Vedic studies, some of them 
looked upon the commeotary of Sâyanacârya, the Vedanhaprakâsa 
(14th century a.d.) as the only sure help in determining the meaning of 
the Rgvedic text. Thèse so-caîled ''conservative Sanskritists"^ were 
headed by WilsoD, who looked upon Sayaça's commentary as'^furni- 
shiag the safest guide through the intricacîes and obscuriues of the 
text".2 Even Roth, who later on looked upon this native commeotary 
as utterly useless, had consîdered it, in the early days of his Vedic 
studies as the main source fo the explanation of the Veda,^ 

ASj however, Roth advanced more in his Vedîc studiesVhe started 
developing a completely différent view. Induction and comparison being 
the main principles of his method, he thought that a well trained 
European scholar could explain the Rgveda much better than Sayana- 
carya/ Roth had several foîlowers aod this idea seemed to gain ground. 
How little value they attached to the comraentary of Sàyana, may be 
seen frooi the foliowing remark of Ben fey/HecalledSâyana ""schwach- 
sinniger Guru von ÈfhgerV*^ or "the feable-minded teacher from 
Srngeri". Just as Wilson was on one extrême, putting too much of 
value on Sâyana, similarly Roth and his foîlowers went to theother 
extrême of entirely neglecting him, one préjudice gîving place to 
another. The middle path was pointed out by Geldner and Pischel; ^^ 

L Burnell, Famiaèr^A/WOTa p.XXXIX A nm. 

2/ ^j^FWa 5tf/72/i//5, Vol. II p. XVIIL 

3. Zur Literaiur und geschichte des Veda - Stuttgart 184o - S* 25 — '* Sâyana's 
commentât wird fucr uns immer so wohl die hauptsachlichste Quelle fur Wcde- 
nerklarung, als eine Fundgrube der Literatur uberhaupt bleiben*'. 

A, Su Peiersburg, Sanskrit-German Lexicon-^p. V-**eîa gewissenhaf ter euro- 
paischer Erklarer den Veda weit richtiger undbesser verstehen koenne als 

5. Vedica and verwandtas, p. 98. 
109 - 17 


Whatever Sâyana's importance îq determining the meaning of the 
Rgvedîc text, it is a fact Ihat though Sayana was removed from the 
Rgveda by several centuries, yet in his work has been preserved some of 
the traditional explanations of Vedic words. 

Thus in Sâyana's work v\fû fiad quotations from several books 
precedîîig hira. Several times he refers to the Naîrukîas, Aîtihasîkas, 
Paurânîkas, Sàbdîkas, Samoradayavidas, Âtmavids and so on. The views 
of others are very often quoted with the introduction anya âha, apara 
aha. and kascid ïïka etc. That he knew such books as the Nirukta, 
several Brcthmanas, Upanîsads and other commenîaries as that of Bhatta- 
bhiskarainisra, Skandasvamin and others is also clear. Thns in the work 
there hâve been preserved several traditional interprétations of the 
Rgvedic verses, That more than one tradition for explaining the Rgveda 
existed even at the time of Yâska, may be clearly seen from the well- 
known discussion "anarihakâ hi mantrah (N.l)which was directed against 
the view of certain Mimamsakas. In Sâyana's book hâve been preserved 
the views of several works that are not availabîe to us and whose ideas 
may be known to us to a certain extent only from the commentary of 
Sayanâcârya. Thus Sâyana's work evokes great interest as the source- 
bookof several traditional interprétations.^ 

In the foilowing pages I shall endeavour to make a critical study 
of Yâska's Nirukta as quoted by Sayanâcârya. It appears that the 
discussion on the value of Sâyana's work has been pursued by scholars 
on both sides mentioned above with naore feeling, even passion than 
factual investigation. Thus a detailed discussion on one aspect of the 
question may be welcome as it may give a sure footing for stepping 

Not knowing the meaning of raany words of the Rgveda^ Sayana 
turns to Yâska for help, and afterhaving given the same meaning as the 
Nirukta he clearly admîts that he isgiving the meaning as Yâska had 
said so.,-— . 

i// j^^fcé;îfi>À:/^a/vi5f (L 124.11 and 12). 

îtî yâskavacanât (l, 44^ 6). 

cidiiyupamarthe iti yaskenopatnBrihasyoktatvat (L169v3). 

and so on. 

Geîdner and Pîschel- '*Nicht Sâyaoa seïbst sondern seine ungenanten Quellen 
sînd es also, die uaser besonderes Interesse erweckcn»'* (Vedisehe Studien 


Yâska is thus admitted by Sâyana as an ancient authorîty on 
Vedic interprétation. At times Sâyana refer to Yaska with an adjective 
Ucnrya indicating vénération as Yâskâcàrya (I. 123, 18). In innumera- 
ble instances Sâyana quotes the meaning of individual words as given 
by Yâska. He quotes Yaska while determîning the sensé of some of the 
prépositions. At times he quotes Yaska in support ofhis own dériva- 
tions. Even in such matters, as determining whether a word ends in ^ 
or not, help of the Nîrukta text is sought (N. 8. 2. under RV, I. 15. 7J. 
So is it in mattters relating to accent (N. 4. 25 under RV. VIL 34. 4). 
Sâyana even quotes legends that bave been referred to by Yàska in 
connection with verses of the same Sukta. Thus in the beginning of 
RV. X. 98 is quoted the story of D^^vapî. Besides thèse, many of Yàska's 
explanations to Rgvedic verses hâve been quoted fuliy by Sâyanâcârya. 
In many of thèse cases Sâyana's own explanations agrée with the expia- 
nations given by Yâska, 

Most of thèse quotations are usaally followed by such statements 
as taduktam yaskena, îti niruktam^ ntruktamatra drasiavyam, iti yUskah* 
ityadi nîruktanûsarena etc. 

Almost each and every quotation is either preceded or followed 
by Sâyana's own explanation. In a few cases however, Sâyana simply 
quotes Yâska without trying to give any explanation himself. The 
vtoïàvayah is so explained (in RV. L 59, 1) and the word virah (in RV, 
X.10. 2). As for complète verses, he says in RV. X. 71. M -^ îtyâdî 
nîruktanusarenârîho'' bhyadhïïyî. In RV. V. 83. 2 -^ ayant mantro nirukte 
spasiam vyakhyàtah îadevQîra likhyate* In RV. X. iùAl - etasyd. rco 
vyâkhyànam niruktaiîkâya uddhrtam* 

Sâyana does not mind quoting the same explanation in more than 
one place. Thus the quotation dhamatirgatî-karma appears in RV. I. 
33. 9,, I. 51. 15 and IIL 30. 10. So also umsyad raksâkarmiï in 
RV.I.58;8, L 91. 15, I, 15;4, L 119. 6, IL 26.4 and X. 176.4. The 
dérivation of the word rajas appears in détail in RV.I. 19,3 and then 
partially in elevenotber places. 

Buteven Sâyana sometimes refers to them briefly. Thus af ter 
having referred to the dérivation of /^n^/ra^ in RV. I. 1.6 and I. 127.2, 
in X. 62.5 he says - atra niruktam ca drasfavyam. Similarly he gives ail 
the différent dérivations oî jatovedâh in RV, I. 44. 1 and in L 127.1 
he says **The vtoxé jatavediïlf has been derived by Yâska variously. 
{jntavedahsabdo yaskena bahudha nîruktah), 

Similarly, while explaining some verses, he does not quotc Yâska's 
explanation of the same verse and simply states that it has also been 
explained by Yâska. Thus in RV. I. 164, 45 he merely says 'ayam 


mantro nîrukte vyakhyatah: sa 'irâpyanusamdheyah. - Thîs verse bas been 
explained in the Nîrukta. That may be recalled hère also : 

In a few places, instead of quoting Yâska m détail, he simply 
gives a summary of Yâska's statemeats in his own words. Thus in 
RV. L 161. U iiistead of quoting the dérivations of the rbhus and 
explanation of the verse vîstivisami - etc.^ he simply writes — 

îatha ca yasko nirukte purànaprakrîyasiddhânrbhun bahudha 
nirucya tadudaharanaîvena vhimsamïtyetamuddhrtya rasmayo 
^pyrbkava ucyamta îtyuktm tasminnariha eîdmrcam udëja- 

Sometimes he avoîds quoting the whole explanation by taking the 
help of Uyddi etc. Thus in RV. ï. \6iA, he writes — 

ayam mantro yaskena vyakhyatah ; asya ydmasya vananl^ 
yasya palitasya paîayîturityadina (N, 4.26); îacca yyâkhyânam 

Though usually quoting in détail in the earlier mandalaSy in the 
later ones, Sayana very often stops referring to the name of Yâska, Thus 
pesa îtl rûpanamay quoted in RV. L 49.2 reappears in RV. V. 66.1 with- 
ont any référence to Yâska or the Nîrukta. Sirailarly the explanation 
sipre hanû nasike v&, which was quoted properly in RV. I. 9.3, isjust 
mentioned inRV. V. 22.4, VIIL l .27, VIII. 2.28, IL 33.5, IV. 37.4 and 
etc. Many such examples may be cited 

Besides this^ in quite a number of places, the influence of Yaska's 
explanation on Sayana's commentary may be clearly seen. Though 
Sayana doesnot refer to YSska in thèse cases^ and though his commen- 
tary i s not verbally the same as the explanation of that Nirukta teacher, 
yet there is nothing to doubt that he is getting the idea from the 
Nirukta. A few exaraples wîîl make it clear. In RV. IX. 97.47 Sayana 
explains the word varpa^- b.% yarpaîîi rupanamavrnotî sarîram îtî, It is 
clear that this has been written under the influence of Yaska CN, 5 8)- 
varpa fti rûpanâma vrnotîtî satah or in RV.X. 114.4 Sayana explains the 
Word samudra as samudravamtyapo^ smëditî samudram arntariksam. This 

dérives directiy from N. 2 IQ -'antariksanamanyutiarâni qodasa 

samudrah kasmad ? samudravantayasmâd apah. Many such exaraples 
may b^ found in the commentary of Sayana. 

Sayana very often does not quote the complète dérivation of a 
Word, given by Yâska at the same place. He quotes ît partially accord- 
ing to his own need in support of the meaning given by himself. While 
deriving the word Irtdra in RV. lïl. 40,1^ hesays -^a/ra yatra yo 'riho 
^nugunastatra sa ^rthàh svtkUryah, This is true not only for dérivation, 
but also for his explanations, Thus according to his own needs, he 


sometimes quotes the complète explanatîon of Asvînau (as in RV. I, 92 J, 
L 112.1, etc.) or just a part of itas in RV.X. 106.5. 

The quo.tations from Yaska's Nîrukîa, found in the commentary 
of Sâyanâcârya do not always exactly correspond to the available read- 
ings of the Nirukta^ This naturally gîves us the impression that some other 
recension of the Nîrukta now lost to us was known to Sâyana and there- 
fore his reading do not correspond to the readings available to us. Thus 
in the printed éditions of the Nîrukta tcxt, Sayana's readings hâve been 
throughout mentioned side by side with the readings of the other avail- 
able manuscripts of the Nîrukta text. 

When, however, we examine thèse quotations carefnlly, we start 
doubting if some other version of the text was really available to him. 
But before we can answer this question, we should see howthequota- 
tions available in his commentary usually differ from. the other recen- 

Very often his quotatians differ from the available ones by the 
introduction of particles. E.g. in N. K 20 Yaska explains the word 
kucara as caratîkarma kutsitamjatha ced devat^bhldhïïnam kvayam na 
caratitî. Sayana quotes the same thing in RV. L 154.2^ but adds one 
va^ after 'caratitiJ 

In a few cases, the introduction of single letter gives rise to 
dîfficultîes. The longer recension of the Nîrukta 12.19 read — 

samUlhamasya pamsure pyâyane 'ntarikse padam na drsyate: 

The same thing is quoted by Sâyana with the introduction of the letter 
a i.o. 2iS samudharrtasya pamsure pyâyane 'ntarikse ».. ... ...* 

Change of letters aiso may be noticed in a few cases. As expia- 
nation of the word rMavûJ^^ Yâska says urubhantîtiva (N. 11.15). This 
Sâyana reads as «r^ Ma«mf v5 (RV, I, 20.4). 

la some other places, Sâyana whiie quotîng Yâska suddenly omits 
a word in the middle. In N. 5.22', Yâska connects the explanationsof 
the first and second padaSy by 'atha% which Sâyana omits, while quoting 
Yâska. (RV. Vl/59.4) 

In a few cases the order ofwordsisalsochangedby Sâyana. 
Yàska^s explanation oîbabhrûfmmin¥i. 9.28. as babhrmarnariam hara-^ 
mnïïm bharaffSnïïmîti vïï, is quoted bySâyaça in X. 97.1 as bharafjânarn 
haranMam itivïï. 


While quoting Yaska, Sâyana sometimes omits a few words in the 
beginning. Iq RV. X. 86.21, Sayana quotes Yaska's cxplanation, as 
fouod in N. 12.28, but omits the b&gmning punarehi vrsskape. 

Sayana on the contrary introduces new words in the beginning in 
a few cases. Explainîng the Çgvedic passage ayaji vâjasâîama, etc* 
N. 9. 36, begins as &yastavye etc. Though ail the recensions agrée in 
that, Sayana begins quoting as âyajî àyasiavye etc, 

Similarly new words are very often added even in the middle of 
explanations. In N. 5.22, Yâska explains j<3 miragm sutesu v3m stava- 
ttesvrîavrdha of the SamhîtU text (VL 59. 4) as y a indragnî sutesu vâm 
somesu sîauti tasyâsnithah. The same thing Sayana quotes but adds 
tesvrîasya mrdhayîtarau na after stauîi* 

Sometimes Sâyana adds new explanations too. For example 
Yaska's explanation of the word ketavah in N. 12.15 is rasmaydh keîavah. 
Sâyana adds as 'asvah ketavo rasmayo va\ 

The end of the explanation is very often left out by Sâyana The 
lastjt?aia of the verse suffers most in such cases. Amongst the nume- 
roas avaîlable examples may be noted RV. I. 66.9, where Sâyana avoids 
the end of Yaska's explanations in N. 10.21 - iddharn samiddham bho- 

Slyana's quotations also read several of the verbs differently. In 
N. 4.13, Yâska explains the verb aksjsuh that appears in the 4th quarter 
of RV, II. 3.12. as apan. In place of apan^ Sâyana quotes 3puh. 
N. 12.3 explains the vcih samavavasîmm as sarnstUyete. Sâyana however 

Some other différences from the point of grammar may be noted. 
Yâska in No. 5.4 explains the Word svasarani z% ahani znà thcn says 
sa (svar) enânî s^rayatî*^ Sâyana quotes this, but writcs etmî for 
enanî. ■ ■ 

Ghanging the case or the gender of the words is also another 
feature. Yad îmira citra mehanûstî of the SamhUà text is explained by 
most of the recensions of the iVïr«^/a (4.4) b.% yad imdra cayaniyam 
mamhanlyamdhanamastu Sâyana however quotes Yaska as yad Indra 

Besidesthis,quîtc a numberof words hâve been quoted diflferent- 

T. \€î, sanmvmaâttMm samsmyethe purusa^^ m the Niruktavivrtti, J>IS? 

1930» p« 496 in the same context as in the commcntaiy of Sâyana uûder 
: '■■,,,'/,RV,l.,l 5.2.4,- Ed,]',' ■ 

Sv {TheNirukta p. 223 reads svar Mîtyo bhavath sa etëni sârayatî - Ed.} 


lyby Sâyanacarya. Thus under RV. T. 104.5, Sâyana rends ^vîbhajatr 
in place of Yâska's 'vinSsayatP (N. 5.16) or in IV. 4.1 reads ^prasa- 
hanâf for ^prasayanaf in ISl. 6.12 and etc. 

Sayana sometimes quotes the names of personages in legends a 
bit differently from what îs known from other sources. While explain- 
ing RV. X, 81.1 in No, 10.26, Yâska quotes a legend, He refers to one 
Visvakarmà Bhauvanah who sacrificed everything in the sacrifice called 
Sarvamëdha. Sayana quotes this legend from Yâska, but writes the 
legendary name only as Visvakarmà. In the èatapatha Brâhmana XIII. 
7.1.14 is mentioned one Visvakarmà Bhauvanah, who performed the 
Sarvamedka sacrijSce. Sayana's reading therefore seems to be incomp- 
lète. ^ 

In RV. 1, 109.2, we find Sayana introducing a new dérivation. Ail 
the manuscripts of the Nirukia agrée in derîving the word surpam from 
sr 'to fall off (srnatervâ)\ Sâyana however adds another dérivation. He 
says srnâteh iamnaîerva i.e. it is derived from sr *to fall ojff' or from sam 
*to destroy or become quiet' 

Examples may be multipîied in most of the cases mentioned 
above. It may be noted that the diJBTerences are mostly of such a nature 
that do not usually change the text completely and are such as may be 
expected araongst the différent recensions. Sayana's familiarity with 
another recension may be accepted, if we could show that Sâyana is 
consistent in bringîng about thèse changes. 

However, when we read Siyana's commentary carefuUy, several 
înconsistencîes in his quotations appear before us. The introduc- 
tion of partîclesj the introduction or absence of such words as 
bhavaîî or tîi do not seem to make any différence for him. N. 6.31 
explains the word vâmam as vëntam vananïyam bhavati, That this was 
known to Sâyana is shown by his quotation under RV* IV. 30.4 -^ vamam 
vananïyam bhavatîty&di niruktam or under VIT. 18.1 - vâmam vananiyam 
bhavati. However the same thing he quotes under RV. VI. 71.4 as vâmam 
vananiyam îti yaskah. The explanation of the word dabhram " dabhram 
arbhakam îtyalpasya, dabhram dabhnotéh (N. 3.20), he quotes partially, 
but correctly under I. 31 .6 - dabhram arbhakam îtyalpasya. The same 
thing appears under I. 126.7, with the introduction ofiïf in the mîddle - 
dabhram arbhakam ityalpasyeîi dabhram dabhnoterin yâskaf^. 

Nirukta9:23 refers to the sensé of the verb bharv ms bharvatir 
attikarma. Siyana*s knowledge of it is shown by him under RV. X. 

9, [SSyana'scommentary onRV.X. 81.1, would make it clear that he was aware 
that one VisvakarmI was a SÂaiiv5>'a«a or a son ofBuvana. - Bd.] 


102,5 and L 143.5, where the exact quotation œay be found. Sâyana's 
commentary on RV. L 56,1, however reads ît as bhurvatîr attikarmâ, 

but adds : dhâtupâthe tu bharva himsayQm îtî paihyate .• akârasya 

ukânchandasah, The same feature may be seen in the explanation of 
rbhava quoted above. Nirukta's explanation rbhava uru bhiïmîiîi va 
appears in Sâyana's explanations of RV. L 161.9. On the contrary, 
Sâyana*s explanation under RV. L 20.4 read it as rbhava ura bhâmtïîi ^^ 

That his sudden omission of a word in the middle has nothing to 
do with a différent recensîon, may be seen from the foUowing example, 
N, 10.26 quotes the legend of Visvakarma Bhauvanah as visvakarma 
bhauvanah sarvamedhe sarvàni bhûtani juhavarncakara etc. Sàyana under 
RV. X. 8l.( quotes it as Visvakarma sarvamedhe sarvani bhutanî juha" 
vâmcakara &nd under RV. X. 81.6 as Visvakarma sarvâni bhuîânî juha- 
vâmcakëra.lhd.i the word sarvamedhe of the Nirukta appears in Sâyana's 
explanation on X. 81.1 and is absent in the other one ruay benoted. 

That Sâyana is not very particular of the order of words while 
quoting, may be seen from the followiog example. Sâyana observes the 
exact order of words while quoting N. 1.4 under RV. L 8.5. It reads : 

Tatha ca yaskah udïïharatî: ubhayamamadhyayam nemdram 
devamamamsateti praîîsedharthiyah purasmdupacârastasya 
yaî praUsedhatL diirmadaso na surëyâm ùyupamïïrthiya upa-^ 
rîstadupacâras rasya yenopamimite. 

However, the same quotation appears in L 124.4 in a différent order/ 
thoughwith the same wording» it reads : 

Tathë ca y&skah- Purastâdupacâras tasya yatpratisedhaîUi. 
tasyodâharanarn nerndratn devam^amamsateii. uparisfadupa- 
caras tasya yenopamimUa îtî. tasyodàharanam durmadaso na 

The same thing may be notieed in the explanation of the word 
pradhana,K, 9.23 ^xplmns it 0.$ ^ pradhana îîi sangramanama, prakïr- 
mnyasmin dhananl bhavanti Sâyana under RV. X- 154.3 quotes it as 
prakirmm asmin dhanani bhavamtïù pradkanah samgrâmah and under 
RV. ï. 523 prakîrnmyasmin dhanâni bhavarntuî nairuktavyuîpattyâ pradha- 
nam itisamgrâmanâma. The interchange of pradhandh and pradhanam 
also serves as an example of how he does not mind changing the gender 
or number, while quoting. Another such example istfae use of the 

10. [Max Mîîller's Ed. {Cbowkliambha, Î966) reads nm M5/iifi -- possibly a printing 
mistake — wîîlîe the other éditions, siich as those f rom JPoona, read «m bhâmtî 
only, Âgain ara does nots^m to fîgïire in the Sanskrit Lexicoas. « EdJ 


Word cîtram of N. 4.4, which under RV. V. 39.1 he quotes as cîtra and 
undcr VIII, 4.21 as citramJ^ 

That Sâyana sometimes quotes very carelessly and substitutes oae 
Word by another is showa by the fact that the same quotation which has 
been quoted correctiy once is written differently in another place. While 

giving the dérivation ofja/ave^a-s under RV. I. 44.1, he reads .., 

jatavidyo va jâîaprajnano ... This is in complète agreement with 

the readings mentioned in N. 7.19. Under RV. I. 99.1, on the contrary 

he reads , .,. jatavidyo va jâtaprajno and no such read- 

ing has been mentioned in the Nîrukta texts.^^ 

Leaving aside such cases of carelessness on Sâyana*s part, in a 
few cases he seems to hâve been influenced by his own explanations. 
Yâska (N. 4.4) explains the first pâda of the verse (RV., V. 39.1) that 
runs : 

yad indra cîtra mehanasti tvâdâtam adrivah j 
radhastanno vîdadvasa ubhavahastyu bhara Jf 

The Niruktakâra interprets it by taklng cîtra as an adjective of wealth. 
It reads - yad indra (cîtram) cayaniyarn mamhamyam dhanam asti ... ..• 
"O Indra, whatever (excellent)/ glorious and abundant wealth there 

îs " The same verse Sâyana explains by taking cîtra as a 

vocative, His explanation reads — 

heîmdrahe cîtra cayanïya he adrîvo vajravann îmdra yan- 
mehana mamhaniyam tvâdâtam tvay'â datavyam radho dhanam 

'O Indra, O excellent oae fc^j;am>a;, eqaipped with thunderbol t farfr/wj 
whatever abundant (mehana) wealth which should be given by you 
(tvadëtam)/is ... .. ...' 

Sâyana obviousîy becomes înflueoced by his own explanation, 
while quoting Yâska and thus his quotation reads — 

atra yad îmdra cîtra cayanïya mamhanïyam 
dhanam astity^âdi niruktam drastavyam: 

That in place of Yaska's cîtram sluA câyanïyam, he reads cîtra and caya- 

11. [But a readiûgof the passage m question is recorded as yad indra citra cSya-^ 
nîya in the Nirukta with Durgâcârya's TrÂrâ (Anandasrama Ed>. — Ed.] 

12. [Thd Auandasram Ed. (op* cit) records the rèading Jataprajnah also in the 
■ f,n. — Ed.}'. ; 

..^ï'''"M09 — 18, ,/' 


lîiya may be ûoted,^^ 

Aaother sach example may be seen in the following verse RV. I. 
181.4 — 

iheha jaia samavavasïtâm arepasa tanva nâmabhih svaîh / 
jhnurvamanyah sumakhasva sUrîrdivo anyah subhagah 

putra uhe jj 

Thefirst piïda of this verse Yâska (N. 12,3) explains a.s - ih a ceh a ca 

jiïtau samstUyete •** ... ... - 'Bora hère and there, they iwo are praised 

...,..,.,' This Sâyana quotes as - îheha jâtau samstûyethe Sayana's 

own explaaation is also the same as his quotation. It reads — 

he asvinau yuvëm samavâvasitâm saha samyagvâ 
punahpunah siûyethe kûmayethâm va yajnam j 
purusavyatyayah ........ 

Sâyana as miy bî seea uaderstands a yuvam connects the verb sarnavâ- 
vasimm'withthat. Tbus he has to change the 3rd person dual of the 
Samhiîâ îQxi to lod person duaL This he calls purusavyaryayah - change 
of the Person. This change he seemsto introduce qiîîte unconsciously 
even io the qootation and thus under the influence of his own explana- 
tîon reads samstûyethe for samstUyete of Yaska's explanation.^"* Other 
sîmilar examples may be found in the commentary of Sâyana. 

Besides this, Sayana's familiariîy with the Classical Sanskrit also 
seems to play a part in bringing about changes while quoting Yâska* 
This featuremaybe found in Sâyana' s commentary Rgveda VI. 59.4. 
The fourth pâda of this verse rtads - na deva bhasathas cana. Yâska 
(N. 5.22) explains this as 72a devau tasyâsnîîhàh, Sâyana quotes it as 
devaunaîasyâsniîhah. The intended sensé being négative here^ the na 
is expected to be before devau in accordance with the rule given by 
Yaska in N. I. A -^ 'purastddupacarastasya yat pratisedhati' - ''The esta- 
blished use is (to place it immediately) before that which it makes néga- 
tive/' ^nd' liparisjâdupdcarasfasya yenopamlmïte.' - ''The established nse 
îs (to place it immediately) after that with which it compares/' There 
being no siich différence in the Classical language, for Sâyana it is the 
same, whether na com es before or a.{tQt devau. Therefore quite uncons- 

13. [See f.n, H above, Fiirther in the given RV., passage a/ra figures as a sarvânu-^ 
datta wotâlikQthQ preceding Indra and the following Adrivah. Now it is a 
point ta be decided by scholars whether ciVra should be taken as a vocative or 
as a nominative adjective afrSiÂaA 'wealthVand wheth^ 

camnîyamcitramoîih^Nimkta îs correct. It may be noted that in RV. I. 
I34* Cl/m^ocoirsasan a/f/ty^z/a-word an been rightly taken by 

YaskM^.2.19)asanadjectiveof thesucceedingj^m^^^ ^nothcxantadâtta 
'Wora-Ed#j .,■ ;',■•■';,■'. 

„ 14.,. '[See :f*n, 7,, above.-- Ed.] ^■■■."■■.■■' " ".-r ''/■■'',: ,-^"^^ 


cîously he brings about the change, while quotîng the explanation of 
Yiska. Sîmilar instances are found in several other places of his 

rt is true that we cannot explain ail the cases, where he brings in 
slight changes while quoting Yaska. But it is a fact that in some of the 
cases the changes may be due to his cirelessness. This suggests that 
Sayana was familiar with sonse other recension of the Nirukta textJ^ 

15» [Tn early days, the commentatoîs, lîke Sâyana, Mallinâtha etc*, depending 
mostlyon theîr memory, often quote the non-vedic passages, on ly bygiving 
theîr respective purports /^r^/t^/a 'nuvadah). On the other handthey were scru- 
pulously faithful to the original while quoting the Vedic passages. This fact 
perhaps explains why Sâyanais found not quoting Y âsk a Verbatim in a number 
of places. — Ed.] 



Kàraka is a technieal tercn employed by Pânini in his Astâdhyâyi. 
Geaerally Pânini's technical terms are short, just as fi, ghu, bha etc., 
but kâraka is a long term.* Tt is so because it bas a defînite purpose, 
as the etymology of the term signifies.^ That is to say the term dénotes 
that thing which accomplishes or générâtes a krîyïï or action.^ So the 
simplest définition of itSrûfcfl is : 

This term is employed in Sanskrit grammar to dénote the apïïdsnos 
sampradma, adhikaraifa, karana, karma and kanr vibhaktîs. 

Now it may be observed that kâraka is derived from the root kr 
(to act) by adding the krt suffice itvul. The latter is prescribed in the 
senseof A:û[rràor agent.5 Further Pânini himself has defined fcûrïS as 
one who is svatantra or independent;^ Hence kïïraka and karm would 
besyaonymns. Thisbeing the case how can the term A:3ra/:fl dénote 
karma, karanaitc.,yf/h.ïc]i are not independent (iJûrafan/rfl) in bringing 
forih an ection ? Patanjaii answers this question as follows ; 

The meaning of a root varies according to the change in kâraka ' 
For example the root pac taken independently dénotes W^KH^'^ôî- 
ôîJiqj^: i.e. action that is conducive to a particular way of breakingof 

1. Œïï#^Mff,I,iv,23. 

3, See jKPthereander, 

4. Gf.BAfunderthe5li:;534. 

V 5. .7^,111,1. 133.; ■ ■:■-;■■■■.;-■■; 

6. FA,ï,i<f,U. 

7. MB, op. cit. iWd, 


riceby using beat, We hâve to note hère that this action includes in 
itself many auxiliary (avântara) actions also» Taking ail thèse into 
considération a root dénotes many meanings. But ail the meanings are 
not denoted always; they diifer according to the change in the karakas. 
When we say 3[^Tf: ^^u the root pac dénotes the following ac- 
tions. (1) Placing the utensil on the oven (2) pouring water into it 
(3) placing rice into that (4) adjusting the burning fire wood and 
(5) removing the j5re wood after the cooking is over. Ail thèse are 
expressed by the root, when it is construed with kartr-karaka. Hère 
Devadatta is the karta, becaase thèse are the activities he does. At the 
sametime we hâve usages m^ f^fcï or ^IT^ tfor ?^î%. The ntensi! 
cooks a ifrowameasureof rice. Eqtq sîhali ox the utensil is the karta. 
In the normal usage ^^J TTO", it is merely an adhikarana or sub? 
stratum. But herc it is treated as a kartâ. There is a change in the 
kâraka. Hère the root ';?^^' means, theacts of receiving rice and hold- 
ing ittilï the cooking is completed. Thèse arc the acts done by the 

Likewise the usage ï^I: 7f^F^ *firewood will cook.' The fire- 
wood whichis fcara«<3 in the normal usage is treated herc as a karta. 
Hère the root pac means burning till the cooking is over and this acti- 
vity is done by the fire wood. In fact, burning or fllamiug is denoted 
by the root jval but not pac. But this meaning is related to this root pac 
hère, because of the following considérations, says Kaiyata. 

1. ^îlcjîîr'l^ï^^^ 'Roots hâve may meanings'. 

2. The burning and flaming are conducive to the breaking up 
and softeningof the rice. So the meaning of pal is super- 
imposed on, or identified with the meaning of pac which 
hence dénotes the activities of the fire wood herc. This 
analogy may be applied in the usages like 1J^: ^j^^ïï 
%^^ *Rama cuts with a sword' and ^|%: feîfî^ ^the sword 
cuts', where asi or sword changes its kïïraka. 

Tô sôme extent the same analogy holds good in the case of 
apïïdana, or Msiiive aiso, E.g/in ^^TH^îFî^f^cî^ f^tj^ 'the lîghtn- 
ing flashes (shines) from the cloud, the cloud is an apudana. The root 
hère means coming out and -shining. Butin S|^^% pT^^^ fel?^ 
*lightning flashes in the cloud*, the cloud is the adhîkaraf^a or locus, 
The root hère means remaining (in the cloud) and'breaking out sudden- 
ly. In the usage ^^îli;# î^%r^ 'the cloud shines (flashesy, cloud 

' 8.^,/TheXI^ under ï,1v,;23,, ,; ' ': 

1978-1979] KARAKA - A BRÏEF STUDY 143 

îs the karta. Bscoming one with the cloud aod breaking or comîng ont 
(flashing) are denoted hère by the root. 

But there are certain instances where we cannot apply the ana- 
logy easîly. Just as we say «f^Tr^^RP^ H^^cT "R?ï^ or, as we saw 
above, 5l5fT|;% f^^^ we cannot say îïï^: ^3TFrS5Î% instead of itTîfl^ 

^FT^SE- Similarly we cannot say f^Rt ^^FÎ^ instead of ÎI^TR ^^1%. 
Why not? The answers is : It is but in the inhérent nature of some 
words. The roots gam and dâ do not express the activities of the apë-^ 
dâna and the sampradana. But on that account they are not non^karù" 
kas. In fact apadâna has an activity in the form of remaining unmoved 

as a limit (^srfq-^T%ïî ^^I^H^)- When we say TW^ Wm^ ^m^% 
we mean that the village remains unmoved as a limit to the movements 
ofRama. UktyivïsQ tht sampradana too has distinct activity of<2?îwma- 
nana or accepting the offer - or permitting the donor to give a thing to 
him as charity . Thèse activities however are not expressed by the roots 
but are only suggested. It is to be borne in mind that even the suggest- 
ed activities can make them kurakas.^ 

Inspîte of this there are no such usages as iTW ^ÎT55*Kf^ îheîr 
meanings are altogether différent and the sensés of the apadâna and the 
sampradanantt not arrived at concîusiveiy. Bhagavan PataEjali expîains 
kârake in another way also, by taking the word ter^fc^a as a synonym 
of kriya : 

^^r ^[^ ^^î^ 1%^R#Î^ ^ri^^L ^R% #. Hère "mWlJ means 
l^^lMi This sutra when constraed with m\ ^^ ^^ôtH^ 
we hâve the full sentence as follows : l%^qt %W^ ^^ ^t cî^ 
^TKR^f W% Visaya hère is again interpreted as Sfï^cf;^^^ and 
finally the sentence would read as 2îîCf]% 2f^^¥3; f^^fîî^' g[^ B{Cff- 

Karma also is used as a karta in the usages like T^^^ ^^^fïT 

and q=sq^ ^^îî: ; f^T^ïï ^î^ ; î^^^ ^5; wood splits itself, and 

^fèpT'S5% ^rÇW^-^ ^I^i;^ ^0 respectively meaning 'the purport 
^f the sâstras knows itself% ^éléphant mounts itself,* - (in the sensé of 
*one knows the purport of the sastras easily% 'one niounts on the élé- 
phant easily'.)^^ 

9/ See i^P, and iV^F, I, iv, 23, 

m^^ - 6'ir, , Introd» to 21€6{FA, ITI, i, 87): ^: 


So we hâve aow seea that where thô activity of the chief agent is 
Bot intended to be cooveyed then kârakas other than kartâ may also be 
désigna ted as karta. 


Bhartrhan's V^kyapadîya sheds more light on this point. There 
the Word sûdhana is used as an équivalent to the word ksraka, Sàdhana^ 
Bhartrhari says, is capacity to generate or bringing ont an activity inhé- 
rent in its own substrata or substrata other than its own. 

%m^^^mè wm mm %: ii {vp., iil vii, i) 

According to this view, it is the sâmarthya or saktl and not the 
rfmvja, that has the éaktî, is the karakaM This view is in agreeoaent 
with JCff; ?ÎÎ^'W[ of the MahàbhasyaJ^ Hère guna means sakti, 
True, eisewhere Patanjali observes that dravya is the sadhana}'^ But 
Helârâja points ont that in ail îhcse cases dravya dénotes only dravya- 
with-saktU (^W^W'^Sp\\) ^^^ î^^t mere dravya. 

Furtber if a d'ravja were to be considered as karaka, then because 
a dravya remains one and the same always, it would be either /cûfrmo or 
fcara«a always. Consequently the usages like^Jq^^ 7=^1^ at one time 
W^ q^i^ at another would be impossible. ^^^ On the other hand the 
sakîis are many in each Jr/ïvyû'. That is why we hâve usages Uke 
^^ ^5 ï^5=2ïï ^ra^ ^n^^ Ç£f[$=2lt 5r$f f^%^ etc., with référence 
to the différent saktis the same sîhaH possesses. If we, on the other hand 
consider sakti as karaka Ihe above usages are possible. Of thèse above 
mentioned sentences the speaker intends to give importance to ontsaktt 
only at a time and it varies aGCording to the kïïraka he intends. The 
i^forthat opérâtes in ^ dravya^ z karma kuraka is différent from that in 
a same dravya or znoxhtt dravya a karana-kâraka and others. So 
there is no sâmkarya of tho karakas is one and the same safo/, asin 
in the case of a dravya. Evidcntly Hari is cclioing PataSjali's 

IL €f. i^^lPlI^'^sî^ mmH^ HeîSrâja*s commentary under VP, ÎIT, 

vîî, 1. 

12. MB, U^U h 

14 Cf. B[^ Jîf: m^ ^ ^r^ W Wcf ; 2ÏW ^^ qfR'îl^ M^, iï, ii^ L 

1978-1979] KÂRAKA-ABRIEFSTUDY 145 

statement STM^R^ f^^iï^^Ici;.^^ Of course we hâve usages Hke 
^^îTr^Hirî^, mm\ mW^^ ^#: f^^^ etc. But hère the éaktt cog- 
nised by the speaker is not tht sakti ip its natural state, but the sakti 
converted into a dravyaJ^ After ail a dravya îs but a collection of 
énergies — 

Ï7|3:[ ^l^r ^M?ï^ "«f%^ f%î^ (FF. III,viî,2). 

Hari also points out that after ail a thing, sîmply because it has 
existence can not become the object of verbal usage untîl that thing is 
cognised by the speaker before hand. Even a nonexisting thing canbe 
named and used in language, if it is cognised. So it is but the state and 
form in which a thing existing or nonexisting is cognised that makes ît 
expressible or otherwise by a word by a specker. It is because of this 
psychological fact that abhava which is generally understood as a non- 
entity is also treated as a &âraA:a, havîng sakti. Fot exatnple : 

Hère the destruction and absence of money are. cons^idered sls kërakas 
or gênera tingfcrijSir. To justîfy thîs^ we hâve to accept the above 
psychologicf^l factor. Hère abhïïva is also considered as a dravya^'^ and 
hence it can hâve saktîs. It cornés to this : Our usages in which one 
-thingis a fcar<3#ta and another îs a A:^r/^ etc. fsadhana'-vyavahâra} - ail 
thèse dififerences dépend upon our intention and cognition. Hari says : 

Underthis Helâraja adds: The usages Ç^^TRTrïï'TR'T^ and W^^: 
î^^qfÇTj^TO etc. (universally accepted as correct, though one and 
thesàmeÀtman cannot be a karta and fearma and adhikarana at the 
same time) dépend on how we view the things. He also quotes : 

"Mind splits a simple one into many 
and couverts many into one'* 

!5. MB,Viy,3. 

16. SeeHeiIrajauoderJ>T,III, vil, 3. 

!?• Hère lira vyacannotes not the fîrstpa<f5r/Aa that îs well known în the Vailesika 

■ 'Works. .■.;.'■■ 
18. KP.III, vii,3. 

■■■■,■ ma .__ tQ ■'■ 


Plaraiity of énergies is aiso a création of our mind. We impose forms 
conceived by us on objects and see différence of powers therein. 

Now arises anotliar question : Examine the sentence Sfî ^^. 
Hère pot is a karma. Hsace it must be a substratum for a vyspXra (an 
opération). How can a nonexisting pot give rise to or contain any 
yfjSpSra like uîpatiîQt production ? The answer is this ? The maker of 
tlie pot àas the form of the pot already in his mind. That can be a 
rtxmntOTsSdham. Whea accomplished, that pot becomes a nirvartya- 

Tbe above explanation is according to the thcory that a Word expresses 
a vyakd alone but not a/â//. Heliraja clarifies ; 

Hari Iy,T'^^ *^°'' ""^^ ^"^^ '^"* /«"'alone is expressed by a Word, 

^...«-*... Itisthe/;^th 

offersa''d\°fi:monr'''^''°°"- ^^« ----^ator on the m;^.,a..>a 

'''_^^^^^^^;^^^^r. and that is dépendent isi«^,r. 

2a UafcrFP,ni.vii.5;viii,7 
21. KP,in.i,27. 

1978-^1979] KARAK4^A BRïÈFStUDY I4t 

This définition is based on Harî^s statement : 

^^ ^^J m^m^ ^^ cr3[r ^m m^^^^ 

'Wfaatsoever at a particular time is helpftil to a partî- 
cular object, that is a sadhana at that time to that parti- 
cular object*. 

So we caaaot say that a particular sakti îs a fixed sadhana for ail. 
Regarding thc qusstioû whethcr ihese saktis are différent frpm the 
dravyas or identical with thera, Hari says that as far as the division of 
Mrafcajr îs conceraed, wc hâve to consider the saktis in gênerai tobe 
différent froitï thc rfravj>aj?*23 


Bhattoji Dîkçîta in his Fraudhamanorama gives an almost différent 
interprétation. He also agrées that the term k^raka h a meaningful term 
and that it conveys its derivative meaniiig ^^Çftfcl ^R^^. But hc defines 
karaka as knyâmayi — 

The argument advanced in favour of this vîew is as follows-In thc 
sentence ^3[t 3^ S'^SM the word sundaram is an attribute to 
pmra. So it is onïy putra qualified by sundara, but not mère j^w^ra, is 
karma-kàraka, having the a/zva/a with the meaning of the root (I^^ÏT). 
In other words, putra, accordîng to the définition is generator of knyâ 
%mw^^ ^Km\ and hence karma karaka. The attrihutt sundara 
also is karma-karaka. On this analogy it may bc argued that in the 
sentence ^fPWÏ 3^ ^^^^ S^SfcT it is only the Bruhmana putra -- moi 
mcre pw/rû-that is questioned and hence\SrâA/Ma«a also, being indirect- 
ly relat^d with questioniag (kriya^vympya)^ mu%t be desigtjated as 
karaka. But if fcârafca is dcfined as kriyanvayi.y then because the word 
Brahmamahz^ no anvaya with the krîys denoted by the root^ it need not 

22. FP, III, vli, 12. 

23. îbidas. 

24. FMr on SKundorPÀ, I, iv^ 49, 

25. See thei&i/â on the XM, p. U?5. 


Nâgesa defines ksraka as : 

%qî^^?f?I^: and aiso as ^ïï^PrHfrB^ =f %^]- 

Hare we hâve to note some points : TJie kâraka is a kaktî or power 
alone but not a dravya, because dravya without àakti cannot generate 
any Ar/vâ or action. This fact is evidenced by Pânini's rule W^^ 
î^frB etc. (2-1-6) which enjoins that an indéclinable, denoting the 
meaning of a vibhakti rnny cotnpound itself with a foUowing word having 
a sâmarthya. e.g. ^'m^ = f^. If the vîbhakîi is to dénote dravya 
alone, then the word adhi hère is useless because dravya is denoted hère 
by the word hari. If the word adhih not used how can there be a com- 
pouad? So^ we hâve to conclu de that the prâtipadika alone does not 
dénote the saiAa/îalike karmaîva etc. The indéclinable a^Aî hère dénotes 
adhikaranasaktu Hence we havs to conciude that dravya is not k5raka?i 

An objection may be raised hère. The Pâuinian rule 

f?^: ?fcRr«î%: ^Û (m, ii, 25) is expîained as ff%^si%: 

Hère pasu (beast), a dravya is treated as a karta. This goes against the 
above view. But the word pakau means hère q^r^ 55^ q. ^gf ï.q., kakti 
orci5aJ(l=r^l«PT: ^!. A saktî must hâve a îocus, and hence pasu h hère 
considered as a dravya the locus of iiifcrf or saktî in pas» a dravya is coh- 
sidered as à tom&a.î» So saA:?/ alone, but not the dravya is karaka. 
Fiirther, by defining knraka as kriys-janakatva, Nâgesa is not accëpting 
thedefiaition givén by Bhattoji. Nâgesa argues as follows — ' 

There are sentences like ^îR^nïït MN-iH^f:. Hère the word M5- 
y-wâ means fcr/yâ. Now, if the Word ArsroJta mustmean fsRRpT - as 
Bhatçoji thiaks-then the above sentence now cornes to mean f^OTï^af 

tep^^U^ This isabîurdv. There is no diflference between u</i/ei;;a and 

26. See PS, 94 and LM, pp. 1 193 ff, 

27. See Section II above. 

28. SJK, 2939. 

29. See Section II above. 

1978-19^9] KÂRAKA - A BRiEF STUDY l4^ 

Further, Bkattoji's définition goes against Pataîjali's interprétation 
of the term fcsra/ca as î^^rî^R^fj^t «*K=hc=l^. There is no inconsistency 
hère. Then there is no scope at ail cither for the objection raised or 
for the answer given. la view of this also karaka h krîya-Janaka on\y. 

Further, the sentence 3î|l5tccrsr>ïï%5 ^^^^ 15: is explained as 
S[MiJr£Bcï%S3ïqîî^^r'^ ^^^#^ m^. Hère the v/MaÂ'/f fjllowing 
Brâhmana has ^;:^3i with ^SW^ but it is not considcred as a karak:z- 

There is also another deanition that runs : f^^îf^^^Htîr^mî^^fe^ 
^;ç^ÇOT Thîs may be the définition of the Mîmarîisakas. The sentence 
%^: ^^4 7=^1% accordingto them means ^^[îîSRfqqîr ^^^^^ ^^^^^T^f^TT* 
The expression Sî^^î^f^ ^^ this sentence is taken to dénote bhâvanâ. 
Hère the kriya viz,, pacana is coastrued with bhdvana which is the mean- 
iûg of the pratyaya and with which Caitra and odana are construed. 
This définition is also not correct The sentence ^^^: ^R^T: means 
4^^^îT ^^: " ^^^^ ^^^ suffix after the root qpê[ dénotes ^^ and this 
meaning also is treated as a karaka as the sufSx is enjotned by the rule 
qîïrf&r ^^: . But it has no anvaya witfa fipqrf^^Çîq^ïîl'sf . So it cannot bt 
tieated as /^arma. This is against the accepted view. Secoodly, if this 
définition of kâraka is accepted, then the statement W^^MT ^T^^î=^^: 
would become meaningless because karaka hère lias no anvaya v^iih 
^]^m a word which should be corrcctiy taken to dénote ^J^^. But 
according to the définition oflFered, the karaka is that which is to be con- 
strued with the meaning of the/)r<2irjaja onty. So the above définition is 
not valid.^^ 

On the same ground the définition î%^î^^3f^H^R2ï^fl^5[f^t^ also 
is not correct. The sentence q^ '^^^: means q^^i^î^ ^^^: . 
Hère odana is a karaka but has no anvaya wîth the meaning of vîbhakti. 
It has anvaya with karma, the meaning not of a vr'Mafc/i but of a /:f^- 
pratyaya having anvaya -with kriyë, So the fallacy of avjà/;// arises. 

We hâve scenso far that the term itârafc/îis definedby the gram- 
marians in two différent way s. But later commentators made an 

30, Sec PS, nndcr Faribha sa 94» 

31. SeeXM; (op. cit)p.ll9Ô. 

32» See the commcntary jRja/â on the above» 


atteaipt to reconcile tbese two, Hence the sentence fTfrêrfq" ^r^spfîrcZF^ 
Î^^F^I^ fc^T^: of the Ptaudhamanoramâ^^ lias been ioterpreted as 
ÇÎ^?fq%?2îcîrq=Eèï^eBÎ%3îr^îf^^fqg[ in the Sabdaratna, implying thereby 

that karaka is that which lias in it î^^r^^T^^^ or power to generate an 
acîivity by virtue of which it construes itself with a kriya. Though this 
commentary leads to a sort of répétition, it is done in view of the criti- 
cism levelled against Bhattoji*s theory, as we saw earlier. 

But later annotators justiSed the stand taken by Bhattoji. 
According to them the Word karaka m^d^m ^fî^{% which again means 
^^î^^ ^mm W^^^cTt ^qT^2ît%- ^Byîts contact a Jt^frait^ imparts 
or brîngsabaut modification (fl^f^WT) in the ^mja.' So Î^^ÎF^f^cTr- 
^^è3[^^ is iht pravrttînimîtîa for the word kùraka. But the conditioner 
(Sî^xiè^sp) for this pravrtîinimîtta is 'ÇT^cî^^^'âf^ ^Rcj[5q'3[cÎTf ^. Th ère fore 
there is ao question of identity (^^^) of the uddesyatavacchedaka and 
vidheya in the sentence ^R^MF ^R^^^:. According to this view, in 

the sentences like ^î ^fîfcf the meanîngs of the w^ords like ghaia can 
hâve anvaya with the meaning of the root, We need not présume a 
mental pot. In the case of i-a^pr^J^/^a aiso wherein the recepient is far 
away, we need not hâve a mental image of the recepient. Words o«" 
their CQûanings can bave direct antaya. In the case of adhikarana it can 
bave direct construction or anvaya vvith kriya through kartà or karma 

Nâgesa, on the other hand attached significance to the statement 
^%çltf^ ^^^î^ in the Mahàbhàsya. When the question of object for 
the verb A:arô/z comes kriya cornes to the mind. The same idea is found 
in the Masja also. Then natunlîy the interprétation |%^ ^^% cornes 
in. Adhikarana also can ganîrate kriya through the kartâ or the karma. 
But niodern grammarîans do not subscribe to Nâgesa's view.^^ 

. VI ■. 

According to the author of the J^âs/^â the words /caraA:a, n/mi//a 
ftnd hetu are ail synonyms, and karaka dénotes a nimitta for krîya?^ In 

33, op« cit. ibid. 

34p For détails sec the Frabhâ on the éabdaratna, op» cit., îbid; the Jyotmâ on the 
MiM, p. 170* For arguments and coanter arguments in this regard sçe the 
CUrapmhha ^né its Notes, p. 336; the JîÂa/rav/ Qn the ^iiWara^^a, o^^ cit. 
'■ ,îhid, ■;■=■■,■■ 

35. Cf. «l¥ir^^ PfWWPrî^: I m^ \^^M^^h^m, - the K^êikû undcr PA^ 

■ / It:iY,.23/;: ■ 

1978-1979] KARAKA -- A BRIEF STUDY 151 

this sensé it îs a safhjnâ and the word is noî derived by addîng the suffix 
0|^^ in the sensé of kam to the root f . h is an avyutpanna or underivcd 

According to the above view f^f^f^TÎ?^ can be taken as a défi- 
nition of kàraka. But this is not accepted by some^ on the ground that 
in the sentence ^^\^ ?tO|^ ^^ Caîtra also may hâve to be deemed 
as a karaka on the ground that he is a nlmitîa for pacana] for his 
permission is necessary for cooking.37 


Visvesvara, the author of the Vaiycikaraf}Qsîddhantasudhânldhi,^^ 
gives t wo définitions attributing them to the gramnaarians : 

Mauni Srïkrsna Bhatta in hïs Lgghuvîbhaktyarthanirmya^^ gives 
the following définitions : 

It may be noted hère that the third defînîtion was gîven by 
Nâgesa in his Laghumanjûsa^ 

Sukla Sri Venî Madhavasastri in his Pansksmdarpanay*^ givt^ b, 
différent définition : 

But he does not discuss fully the validity or othcrwise,of the définition. 
Besides, he quotes the third of the three définitions quoted above. 

36. Cf. 3|^^^çqfvf: ^f :a«^ 1%fîn:î^ïïî^: -Fadamanjarî and j^ya^a under the 

37. PIM, p, 169. 

38. p. 804, 

39. pp. 22-23. 

40. p. 60, 


The VaîyakaraftabhûsanasUra does not define kâroka. But it lays 
dowa thât ail the kârakas deoote ^ffcT also, in addition to ^[^^î, ^f^, 
etc. So ihe karakasasthi also dénotes the sakîi^^ This is to some 
extcnt a Bovel idea. 

Srîpati, the author of the vrni où the Katantraparisista^^ deals 
with this topic. According to him kUraka aod kriymîmîiîa are 
synonyms. Kiraka,hesays, isoffivektndsviz..iravj;a, ^2/««3,Â:n>/3,7a^/and 

svampa. Thèse are ilîustrated by ^'î?':, ^:5 TNî:, |^: and T^: . 
Agaiû, each of thèse is of six kinds, karîa, karma, karana, etc. Farther, 
karaka is of two kinds viz. ^^[^^[crF^ and T^l'ô^^l^qf. jhe first is 

ilîustrated by the Word ^^^: (W^R^Iiïïfèfè) and the second by ^W^ 
m the sentence ^^it ïïffF W^fè The author of this work also finally 
déclares karaka as kakti and not dravya. 


L Vyakarana Mahë Bhësya - Nirnayasagar édition with Pradipa and 
Uddyota ' 

2. Kësiku - with Nyâsa and Padamanjarî 

3 . PraudhamanoramS with Sabdaratna and Bhairavt 

4. Laghumanjiïsâ^ with Kala-fikâ 

5. Laghuiabdendusekhara "^ith Candrakala commQntdiTy 

6. Siddhiïntakaumudi with Baîamanorama commentai-y 

7. ParamalaghumcmjSsë 

8. Laghuvibhaktyarthamrftaya 

9. Vaiyàkaraifasiddhàntasudhiïnidhi 
10. Panskïïradarpana 

IL VaiyakaranabhûsaffasMra 

12. Vakyapadiya with Htlz^ 

13. Kmantrapariifsia (Bmgsili script). 

41* TheT<iij^/:amffaM5safas5ra, pp# 135*136» 

I978--1979] KARAKA - A BRIEF STUDY 153 


MB - Mahabhâqya 

BM - Balamanorama 

SK - SiddhSntakaumudi 

PA - Pânini's Asiadhyayi 

KP --Kaiyata's Ptadïpa 

NU - Nigesa's Uddyota 

PM - PraudhamanaramS 

LM - Laghumanjusa 

PS - Paribhâsendukekhara of Nâgesa 

PLM - Paramalaghumanjûsa of Nâgesa. 

109 — 20 



We had explaioed io a paper published sometime ago the validity 
of the theory of 'Convèrtibility of Surds and Sonajits asapplied tothe 
Tatnil Laoguage' by collecting and analysing the historical évidences 
fromTamil inscriptions in Kannada, Grantha and Nâgari scripts.i It 
was observed then that 'Tamil inscriptions engraved in Tamil script are 
naturally not of any help to us', since there is no provision in the 
Tamil script for transliterating sonants used in the case of sister 
languages. It was also averred that the Sanskrit inscriptions in the 
Tamil country upto the thirteenth century do not give us any due. In 
thèse circumstances we are forced to analyse any new material that may 
help us in strcngthening or extending the conclusion then reached that 
the phenomenon existed certainly from at least about a.d. 1000. 

The new évidence is made available in an inscription from 
Srirangam.2 It isdated in the2nd year in the reign of a Parakcsari- 
varman and records the endowment of gold towards fecding a brâhmana 
well-versed in the Vëdas on the occassions of themidday service by 
Pusamkan PiriDderumân, the son of Talikkôttûr Dêvanâr in Nenmali- 
nâdu. The endowment is said to yield intcrest out of which the items of 
food enumerated thercin are to be served. The words used in respect 
of thèse are j7a/iM standing for interest and âfmi raeaningrice. The 
passage transi itéra ted runs as foUows:- îdan palisaiyàl pattettukkuttaî 
palav^arisi nSîu-rîy-slâkk'(ffisiyum......The wrîtcr of the inscription has 

used the Grantha letters in the place of ca as ia and tJhus substi- 
tutingthe Grantha sibilant sa for ca ynhich should havc been used 
in Tamil script thus indicating the phonetic value of the letters iûi and 
sf ending the woids paHiaimd arisî respectively. This gives us a cîear 

1. M<j-/rflnwB /o«r«a/, V0I.XIV, No.3/4, 1972. 

2. South Indian Inscriptions, 'Vo].ÏY,'iiç*57Xi, ■ . , . 


évidence of the existence of the lax (more or less voiced) articulation 
with weakened occlusion întervocally of the letter ca into sa. The 
inscription can be placed palaeographically in the first half of the tenth 
century and therefore the king may be identified with Cola Parântaka L 
Thus the date of the record may be placed in a.d. 908-09. Another 
inscription from the same place cngraved on a slab kept near the 
Devasthanam Muséum dated in the 41st régnai year (a.d 947-48) of 
Parântaka I uses the sibilant ia în the word palavarisîJ^ 

Tfais discussion along with ail that we havc explained in the 
previous paper already referred to substantiates the fact that thougb the 
script employed to wrîte Tamil textual matter does not give room for 
representing correctly the vàriôus sounds dbtained In actual pronuïicia* 
tien, the occurrence of the weakened occlusion of the plosives placed 
intervocally involving a lax articulation could be traced to a period 
even earlier to a»d. 1000. 

Thîs leads us to accept the validity of the' diacrlticti marks 
employed in tbe translitération of Tamil epigraphic textsin the Roman 
alphabet wliere tbe actual pronunciation is attempted to be fepresented 
such as in the case of the following expressions: TirumagaU yandu, 
pûdu, arisi, Édla, etc. 

3. Ammml Mepmri 0m Soùih îndian Epîgrmpky, 1936-37, No. 95. 




The expressions vskyârtha znà kîivyârtha are so ofien used in a 
way almost interchangeable by writcrs like Ânandavardhana that it 
becomes a source of confusion in deciding the textual readings. The 
évidence of raanuscripts is far from décisive and confusion becomes 
more confounded. To take a few cxamples :-- 

(v.L. ^rsîîî^) 3TrW5'w^% ^ I* 

■ Citations of such passages by other wrtiers like Hcmacandra too 
aïe not décisive. Thus we fînd in the Kâvyànusâsana the verse %^ 
Iw^f^fK^^ introduced vi^ith the prefatory rcmark:— 

This testimony positively goes ajainst scores of citations of the Dhvanyn- 
loka-kïïrikâ concerned with the reading 'ôTî^îPT»-- 

1. The DAvfl/ij'â/oifl. (Dharwar, 1974), i>. 22. 

2. ibid., p. 296. 

3. Fotind io ibid.. p. 44. 

4. The Kâvyânuittsana, {KemseâE(i*VM.Kéka.tni, Ahmcd*bad, 1964) p, 164. 


Since textual crîticisraisof litclehelphere wehave to seek the assistance 
of hïgher criticism This short paper is a humble effort in that 


The earliest usage of the expression uader study îs in Bharata's 
Hmyasïïstm (ch VIÏ). He defines Bhïïvas as those factors whîch 
stimulate xf^fo^fp^; ;— 

R, Gnolî translates it as 'the aims of the poem' keepiog in mind 
Abhinavabhârati^s ^xplàndiXioni 

That is to say, ârr/A^ does not carry the usual meaning of ^sense* or 
*împort' herc, but it means the *end' or 'goal' towards which the poem 
îs directed, nameîy rasa, 

Fortuoateîy, this portion of ihc Abhinavabharaft is found quoted in 
therecently pnhlished Kalpalatanveka,^ and is aiso cited by Heraacandra 
in his Këvyanusësana.^ The full text is as follows : 

^r^f ^aftr^cîH^ ^ïïs^t^îî; ^m^Fçftfe ^r^ ifè ^f^ ^m^wï^^ i 

^mm^- ^^^]^^ (W^mY ^ppt^rs to be a misreading) 

From the Kalpalatâviveka vve get the idea of the context of this 
interprétation, which we are prone otherwise to deem as Abhinava- 
gupta'sown, The context set out thcrein is the theory of Mâv^«â or 

5. The Dhvanyahka op. cît*, p. 42. 

6. The HSiyaéâstra» GOS Ed., p, 342. 
7- loc. cit., p. 34. 

8, Pub, Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Skt» Vldya.nandir, (Ahm:îdabad, 1968), p. 308, 

9. op, cit», p. 97, 


bhavaka-vyapâra propounded for the first time by Bhatta Nâyaka, while 
expîaining the ultimate end of poetry, viz., rasa, and its aesthetic delight 
(called bhoga) to the responsive spectator (sahrdaya) : 

We hâve hère a clear and concise statement of the Mîniârîisâ concept of 
bhàvana in the vedavakya applied to the field of kâvya. The name of the 
vyâpâra is îdentical to the Veda and to the Kâvya; ît is bhïïvanà or 
bhâvakatva. The cad envisaged and realised is invisible religions merit 
or apUrva in ths former, while it is ôftoga or aesthetic rapture in the 
latter. In the former the syntactic construction (samsarga) and the 
diversity (bheda) of the constituent éléments are to be reckoned as 
inteadcd meanings since they can bring forîh the end. In the same way^, 
since sentiments like Love can brîng forth the end of aesthetic delight, 
they are themselves to be regarded as intended 'ends* of poetry. In other 
words the causal factors leading to the end are metaphorically termed 
themselves as 'ends\ Maramata has given the illuminating analogy of 
"ihe two wellkoown kînds of perception, v\z.^ savikalpaka (dctcrminate) 
and nirvîkalpaka (indeterminate) while explaîning how both stated 
(vàcya) ditià snggQsiQà (vyahgya) cléments are involved in the figure of 
sp^e^ch y Paryayokt a, Our flrst sensation on perceiving a running white 
cow is unified and has no divisions of quality, action etc. This is 
nirvikalpaka-praîyaksa. But the very next moment we are also aware of 
thcse divisions and that is the savikalpaka stage of perception. Sîmilarly 
in scriptural statements we hâve a total apprchensîonofMâra/îâf as well 
as symactical relations ofdcnotative words. Bhatta Nayaka would say 
that the total effect of poetry is aesthetic delight while the causal 
factors leading to it are rai'a^ or sentiments like love in their varicty. 
Philosophically, there is identity bctwecn raj^a>y and their bhoga or enjoy- 
ment in the theory of Bhatta Nâyaka Hence there is nothing unusual 
in his équation of rasa as kSvyartha, and his follower Dhanika in equating 
it further with tâtparya ox vakyarihaJ^ Bhoja, in his own way, can 
suggest a synthesis between his own idca of dhvam bs mcTQly éabda'' 
âharma mià mtparya 2i% ariha-dharma m^^^^^n'k^^^'^^ S^fS^- 1^^ 
But it is ail beside the point in a way. For, itis now virtually clear 

10* TÂe J«rfl/i7a/^^avi>e/:a, op»cit, pp. 307-308. 

11 * eu Daàampakavaîùka, (Ed. T. Venkatacharya, Madras, \9€Z) p* 2î2. ; 

12. The Érngaraprakâêa, (Ed, G,R. Josyer, VoL h Mysore, 1 955) p, 221 and pp. 


that thc verse which openly déclares this îdea îs orîginally from Bhatta 
Niyaka. Hemacandra cites ît as follows : 

In thô Ught of this, it will also be cqually obvions that the other 
verse which openly déclares \^ as ^ô2p{ quoted iii ihis very context 
both by Abhinavagiipta and Mahimabhitta - is also from Bhatta Nâyaka 
himself : 

In the lifht of ail thts wc might reasonably concludc that in the school of 

Bhatta Niyaka r^rira may be regarded either as ^]^J^ or as ^fîFîpl 
or as both. 


But we hâve to face the problem posed in the Dhmnyaloka^ Surely^ 
Anandavardhana cannot be cxpectcd to share the idca of his avowed 
advcrsary, Bhatta Nâyaka, evca though Abhinavagupta might choose to 
adopt some of his ideas and încorporate them in his own reinterprcta- 
tîon of ùhvani theory. To get an inkling into Anandavardhana' s usage 
of the terms ^flW^ and ^ôq^f^î we hâve to perase the usage of those 
who preceded him and were aear cnough to him. Fortunately, the 
KalpalatàYiveka comci to our rescue hère also as it quotes from the lost 
Bhïimahavivarana, Udbhata's usage of the word WP^ in connection 
with W- Vftmana's usage of that Word îs non-technical (Cf. ^^ ^T^F?- 
TO ^mi^ ^ 'T3[r^Hir)^^ and necd net detain us hère, 

The relevant passage from the Kalpaïataviveka is this :- 

13. loc, cit. p. 97. 

14* Sec The VytLktînveka I. Thc G*D.S^ éd. (1956» p* 277) bas the misreading 
^ij^^HlM^l instead of m^^îtit^ l 

15. Kâvyâlakkârasûtravrtti, lîï, îii, 2. 


Udbhata's view îs that when Ç^ is ^K^pî ©r primarily sigaîfied, ît 
should be regard ed as the figure ^ÇT^, and when J?^ îs ^R"^H or 
subsidiary to another îdea, it should be taken as a kind of ^IrfT^^ . 
Mammata does not accept this as he îs a follower of Ânaudavardhana 
who regards ^^THIR-ÇÇr as ^^f^^flR. This quotation may possibly 
be explained in terms of Udbhata's Kâvyâlankïïrasahgraha also. But the 
following quotation cannot be so explained. It must be traced back 
to the Bh^mahavivarana onïy . We are îndebted to érîdhàra's commen# 
tary on the Kavyaprakasa for this very important citation :- 

From this quotation we learn for the first time that Anandâ^ 
vardhana's référence in the D/îvanj?3/oA:ato this eJË^^ 

isto thé opinion of Udbhatâ and that he had used the Word «rT^r^^TT^ 
also in; the sensé of a main subject descrîbed in a sentence. For, accord- 
ing to hîm the ^FRHÎ^R of W is tantamount to ^I^^iï^^R of sen- 
tient characters. We are thus jnstifitd in concluding that Ânanda- 

16» loe. cit., p. 280. 

17. Kâvyaprakâéa Ed. Bhattacharya, Volt II, (Calcutta. 1961) p, 141. 

\%* Dhvmyâloka^Ql?* cit., p. 4S. 


vardhana is aiso osmg tàe Word ^^^ iû the technical sensé of the 
principal scntencô-purport io conoectioii wîth rasa. Thîs thcn îs the 
inteuded sensé in tht oft-quoted kariku - 

It caûBot be substitutcd by me Word ^F^^I^ which might well cofîvey 
the gênerai sensé of a poetic thème as in :— 

Hôîiee Vidyâcakravartin is right in surfâmiîîg up Snandavardhana's vîew 
iiî the following maMer r- 

It caîwot be sîibstittited by the wofd ^fRi^:. Thus in thé Bhvanya^ 

Ma ff^^ and ^S3rr€ âfeneverintêrGhangeableas in Bhatta Niyaki, 
Bhoja, DhanaSjaya and Dhanika- 

Somctîmes Anandavardhana îs seen using the word cf|^l«f 
Iti a séose différent from the two sensés - one technical (noticcd 
above) and the other gênerai (as in the usage) •- q^ ^SCP^"^ ^PRT^» 
^H^ïlïd discussed lo far. thus he states uàder 3Ml^<[ïlor as follows:- 

s^îf q^îFs^é ^F52^ sTOF^ ^^m, ^mr^rfqcRr^^ 

How can the *moon* and the *night* themselves be regarded as ^iïWT'f ? 
Quiteafew copyists of the Dhyùnyëloka hâve thought that the word 
^îp^fnl suîts better îû this contett. Hence they hâve emended this aôd 

19. ibid. 11,5. 

2Ô» ibid. IV»6» 

21. Alankarasanpvint, Delhi (1965), p. 4. 

22. Dhvanyïïhka^ op, cit., I 10« 

23. ibîd.p.22. 


th# Word ^^^ iûto ^fôqjlï in the immediately n€xt seatence also 
aamcly : 

But this is unnecessary and uawarranted. The Kaîpalamvîveka givcs 
the meaning intended by Ânandavardhana hcre as follows 5- 

^mm^^f^ Sf^^?ffqrt^l|: 


Thèmes such as the moofi and the night in the Samasokfi and suggested 
ideasinthe Âksepa are ail contextualiy appositc and that is the thîrd 
meaning of ^«f^îî^ in the Dhrmyâloka. 

In the practical criticism of verses involving Xnandavardhana*s 

W^5[$lfR {such as m ^ ^2[r%?^#î and WPW. ^...,)^^ one or 
more ra^a^ may be subordinate to another dominant one. AU the beau- 
tics acquired by the subordinate ones are said to rcdound to the over-all 
beauty of the dominant rasa only. In this connection the Locana quotes 
a verse :— 

301: ^cîM^^- ^^ ^Wm \ 

This verse has been quoted thereafter by a hos t of writers indud- 
ing Mammata^ Hemacandra, Kavyakalpalatâvrttikara etc. But nowhere 
îs the source mentioned. It is not Nafyasastra ^^ tht editor of the 
Bâlapriya édition has wrongly indicated in bis index. It is not Bhartr- 
hari's Fâfcj^a/^arffya or Kumârila's ramravarmffca. Abhinavagupta refers 
to thcauthor of this citation as **Tatrabhavan'% who could it be ? Will 
any scholar throw light on this ? 

24» îoc#cit» 

25. ibid.p*81. 

26. ibid.pp. 172,174, 



The mastcr poet Vâlmîki bas dcalt with many important topics 
in fais inimitable epic Mmûyana, In thi» paper it is proposed to study 
.briôfly what this epic bas got to say on the duties of a kiag (rijadharma). 
Bharata meets Rama in the Citrakiïta forest, At that time the lattcr 
asks Bharata a seiies of questions pertaining to the welfarc of their 
father Dasaratha, the three queen-mothers, preceptors and other elders 
and on the various duties devolving upon him as a king. The questions 
refertothe king's duties to the seven limbs of State (saptsnga) viz.» 
svamî (king), amSty a (minister), suhft (allies), kosa (treasury), r3s<ra 
(territory, kingdom), durga (fortrcsses) andMa(army). Râma also 
refers to the ihtec purusârthas vlz., iht dharma, tht artha Sind the kâma. 
Helays spécial emphasis on the basic purusârîhay i.e. the ^Aûraa which 
is the greatest friend and ally {mhrt) oï a king. The questions are 
introduced generally by the expression kaccit (I hope that.. ......etc.) and 

hence this chapter is knowû as iTûtfdZ-wrfa. 

The duties in this chapter aie referred to in the form of injunc- 
tiofls or what is to be donc (mâhi), prohibitions or what is to be avoided 
fwrfajand mère statements. They are put both in the active and 
passive forms of the verbs.^ 

1. Référence: Vâlmîki RâmSyana (Law Journal Press-Madr as Second Edition 

raAJ-active: 5B%-f fP^ %ï* j wm^ ^m^^] Ift 5r|sqt, WêrW ^ctW 
î[^ , 3mtSî!Î ^îffe I etc. 

ndfti-passive:^iW-^S'rRr: "î^j ^Rfçf: g^<T:, «J^ïTr^^feT:^ 

â-iRïllW: icPÏ Tl^fiï: , tifer: ^\ f?î: etc. 

■ CtC» ■ : 

'NisedhB-^îL%%m'.^^^^'^\ ^^)^^SE^'^]. I etc, 
Merestatement: ^ i| ^m ^^oî f | flq'i^qlRiïî: l 


The svsmin- (kîng) should propitiate the gods and honour hîs 
parents, preceptors, elders, the wise and the learned in Vedic lore. 
Rising up very early, he must thiok about the prospective duties of the 
day. He should GOt deliberate and décide on any course of action ail 
alone or with too many; nor should the décision leak ont before its 
fulfilment. The tributary kings should be treated in such a way as to 
keep them devoted and prepared to serve him at any cost. The king's 
messenger should be a local citizen, endowed with wisdom, présence of 
mind, common sensé, honesty and learning.^ The bases of prosperity 
are agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade (vârtîa) and hence those devoted 
to thcse Evocations should be specially protected, ^hile ail the subjeçts, 
in gênerai, are to be protected. Women should be protected while 
secrets niust be guarded from them. The wealth in the form of éléphants 
and horses should be preserved and promoted. In royal attire, the king 
should appear evcry morning before the people in the hall of audience. 
He must not, out of greed, incrîminate an honest person for theft and 
punish bit© v;ritl|out any investigation; nor should he let free a tbîcf 
e?IUght rcd-ba^ded. Elderly people, youngsters and scholars should be 
won over through gifts, kindness and sweet words, respectively. Due 
honour should be paid to the preceptors, elderly persons, ascetics, 
honourable guests, sacrcd places of worship and the learned brahmins. 
Timely attention should be paid to dharma, artha and kama wiihout any 
confiict aimong them. The king should seek the good wishes of learned 
brahmins, the citizens and the people, at large. He should carefully 
gui^rd himself against the following defects to whîch kings are liable : 
Atheism, false-hood (lyîng), anger; carelessness, procrastination, not 
meeting the wise» îazioess, being a slave to the five sensés, deliberating 
and deciding alonc, deliberatîng with misleading people, not commen- 
cing what has been decîded upon, not guarding the secrets, not com* 
mencing auspicious things; and sîmuîtaneous expédition against many 
hostile forces. Due attention should be paid to the several political 
expédients that ensure success and prosperity, The king should tread 
on the righteous path taken by his forefathers. A king fulfils his mission 
herc and paves the way for a blessed future, by protecting the subjects 
according to dharma and wielding the rod of punishment with justice. 

Amatyas and Mantrïns^ (advisers and ministers) : The ministers 
chosen should be trustworthy, valorous, learned in sacred and secular 
lores, self-disciplined, of high descent and intelligent is knowing other's 
intentions. Sînce secret délibération is the root of success, the coun- 
sellors should be learned and capable of guarding secrets. A learned 
counsellor capable of saving the king in times of extrême crîsis is to be 
preferred to a thousand with meagre întcllectual calibre ; an intelligent, 

2, For svâmin vlàt verses 13.17,1 8,3 4/3 5,47 to 51,56,57,60 to 67,74 and 76. 

3. For amiïtyas and mantrîns vide verses 15,16522 and 24 to 26. 


valorous, dexterous and far-sighted counsellor, will certaiBly lead 
royalty to sure prosperity. Officers endowed with best, aveiage aod 
low intellectual calibres should be put respectively in charge ofsupe» 
rior, ordinary and easy types of work. Minîsters, preferably hereditary, 
and proof against the faults and lures which are out of tune with their 
office should be appointed to suparior posts, 

Suhri"^ (ally; friend) :- The king should keep the friendly mem- 
bersof royal descent loyal and devoted by honouring them. He must 
not ignore the disafifected and the weak. 

Kasa^ (treasury; coffers) :- The income should exceed the expen- 
diture. Money should not goto the undeserving. Provision should be 
made for conducting rites meant for gods and mânes and for rcceivîng 
learned brahmins, guests, soldiers and friends. 

Rasfra^ (state; country) :- The king should préserve and pro- 
mote the prosperity of the kingdom having temples and sacred places 
ofworship and lakes and inhabîted by good and contented men and 
women^ rich in mines and bereft of fear and sinners, The subjects of 
the State including agriculturists and merchants, and women, in parti- 
cular, should be protected from harm. 

Dar^a*^ (fortifications; protective defences) :- The fortifications 
(means of defence) should be provîded with wealth, grain and water and 
equipped with weapons, machines, artisans and archers. 

Balam^ (army) :- The Comraander-in-chief of the army should be 
daring and heroic, intelligent and honest, nobly born, devoted and 
dexterous. The leaders of the army, migfaty and skîlled in war and of 
tested valour should be properly honoured. Tîmeîy provisions (food) 
and salary, without delay, should be given to the army constituents. 
Delay makes them indignant and disafifected which îs a source of danger, 

Thus, în the form of questions put to Bharata through the mouth 
of Rama the poetValmîki refers to the dutiesof a good king towards 
himself and to the varions éléments of sovereîgnîty. 

4. For suhrt, ibid. verses 34,37* 
5* For kasa^ ibid. verses 54,55. 

6. Votrâstra, ibid» verses 40 to 48, 

7. For J«rir<if ibid» verse 53* 

8. For fcfl^, ibid, verses 30 to33* 



In th'e Annals of the Bhandarkar Instîtute, Yol. hX, pp. 1-40, 
S.V. Sohoni has published a long article entitled 'Gaptas, Kadambas, 
Pallavas and Kâlidâsa' in which be bas tried to shed new ligbt on an 
incident in the life of the great Sanskrit poet. He kiiidly sent us m 
off-print of it with a request for comments. Instcad of sending our 
view on the matter privately, we discuss it in détail hère so that other 
scholars also may be induced to state their own views on this interesting 

Sohoni bas made an exhaustive study of Kilidlsa's Works and 
written on various problems suggested by them. He is also an imagina- 
tivc reseàrdher. Hi« imagination pénétrâtes into and brings to light 
aspects of things which would not bave been dreamt of . We may cîtc 
an instance ofitherc. In th» Raghmama (XIIL 27} as Rima and Sïtâ 
approached the Milyavat mountain in the course of their journeyfrom 
Lanka to Ayodhyâ in anaerial car, Rima discribes to SIta in the follow- 
ing verse how in the beginning of the fainy season he was overwhelmcd 
with grief on account of séparation from her. 

Sohoni scented hère an incident in the life of Kâlîdâsa. He found 
that therewas another reading PalîmânSm for palyaîsnsm in this verse. 
He also rioticed therein the mention of Kadamba, which, again signified 
an ancient royal family. So he suspscted that the poet must bave used 
thaïe words deliberately as he was reminded of an incident in his own 

109 - 22 


!îf0 whcjû he came into coatact withi thèse princely famiiies.^ No com- 
meBt on thîs suggestioxi is necessary. 

Sohoni has oot^ indeed, produced any Eew évidence 00 lifc of 
Kilidasa. Scholars hâve, ia the past, put forward différent interpréta- 
tions of some Sanskrit passages supposed to hâve a bearing on ît. Sohoni 
has attemted to corrobora te one of them, We shall first give thosc 
passages in full and then examine crîtîcally Sohoni*s interprétation of 

We hâve cited thèse passages in our K^Hdmsa (English éd., 
pp. 30 f.), but we reproduce them hère for convenience of referece. 

(J) In Ms ÀûcUyavicQracàrca the followîng 

verse from Kaiidasa's Kuntalesvaradautya as an instance of adhikara^-' 
aucîiya (appropriateness of place) and explains it in détail — 

Trans : For an instance of apptoprîateness of place, see the 
following verso of Kalidâsa from the Kuntaïesvara-dautya (the embassy 
to the lord of Knntala) : — 

1. Sohoni says, "I venture ta suggest thkt the close prôximity of words îike 
pallavâhàm and nm paimBrmk, uud tiie phras^ sr/^gdfmÉ=ca k^kâft éikhinâm, 
along with the expression tvayâ vînâ rHe asahyâni babhuvuh were cmployed 
deliberateîy, and taken together they constitute Kâlidâsa's référence to the 
Pallava and Kadamba dynasties..,../^ (A^B. O.RJ , LX, p. 27. We wonder how 
Sohoni mîsspd the référence to^Ma^urasartnaa în âikhinâm in the above verse. 

There is ahsolutely no indication of puns on the words paîlavânâm^ Kadambçi 
and àsahyâm* Thèse are méré ôgments of Sohoni 's imaginations. ' 

2* Auçityàvicârqcarçâ {Kavyamâla, T, 133). Kunîéivaradautya în the printed téxt 
i%^yïétnX\é tLm\si2tkt^îow KuHtakâmradautya^ ' s ^ c.-rf;; 


*/Oa tkis (earth) stands McTU^JM4c^^î-^J^^^^ aBd 

^ere the seven scas also hâve laid their heavy weig^t.TTii® surface of 
this earth is supported by '^e pilîa;#s iïî.ïhé-ï^f^ of the lord 

<)f serpents (Sesa). This is (there fore) the appropriate seat for people 

'Ashe, though an ambassador of a Maharaja (greatkîïig); does 
not get a seat worthy of the greataess and hononr due to his loxdj in the 
as^sembly halfoftiie féudatory, he sits; on th1é gfouo^, aûd {wlfën asiced 
iVhy he d;id so) sayS with boldness and serenity -~^*'Thïs séât whiè^^^ 
reiidered immovable by the namerous pillar-tike hoodsof the lord of 
serpents (âesa) is the only proper seat for people lïké ns; it îs hère that 
Meru, the lord of mountains, and also the seven seas are seatêd. We 
are not inferior to them.'' Hère *the appropriateness' is in respect of 

(2) The second passage is aîso from the Kunîaîesvaradautya, It is 
cited in t\it Kâvyamimamsa^ of Ràjasekhara, ^Lnéïii^ SafdsvatïKcmfM- 
.bHarana'^ 2inâ ih^ Èrhgdraprakasà'^ oîBhoydi. 

/Whcn Vikramâditya asked Kaîidâsa how the king of Knntala 
'Was governing his kingdom, the poet made the foHowing report to 
Mm — 

*'The lord of Kuntala, entrusting the responsibîlity (of goyerning 
hià kingdom) to you, engages himself in kissing the faces of his belovedSj, 
fragrant with ^ïn^ - (the faces) which appear respîcndant a^ it were by 
slight smiles and the lotuses on the ears of which appear prominent as 
their eyes are half^closed.'* 

Thereupon Vikramâditya gave his reply in the same verse^making 
<ïnly slight changes in îts wording as f©llows — 

3. JTâvyamîwaiw^^ {G.O.S. 1916), pp* 60-61. 

4. SarasmtJkanthâbharam I^.S.^.^l^^ FBatu tfaere îs a misprint for 
pîbatu : ■"' ' ■' '"-' ' ''"■ •■'" 

5. ¥• Raghavan, Bhoja*s Érngâraprakâéa, p. 766* 


"The lord of Kuntala may continue to kiss the faces of hit» 
beloveds, fragraat with wiae, eatrusting the responsibilîty of governing- 
hîs kingdom to me". 

Scveral anecdotes about Kâlidâsa are mcntioncd in the Bhoja-- 
prabandha oî Bnliih, but he is a very late author. So t h cy arc of no- 
importance. But the two passages citcd above are nearly a thousand 
yearsold as they occur in the works of Râjasckhara ftcnth cen. a.d.) and 
of Bhoja and Kscmeiidra (eleventh cen, a,d.). They, therefore, deserve 
3iore crcdcnec. Seholars hâve, howcver, suggcsted varions identifica- 
tions of the king of Kuntala caentioned therein. firsi View - This view 
was first put forward by Rev. Heras^ of the St. Xavier Collège, Bombay, 
severa! years ago. According to it, the lord of Kuntala to whose court 
KalïdSsa was sent was the Kadamba king Kakusthavarman. At Tila- 
gunda in the Shimoga District of Karnitaka a large Sanskrit inscription^ 
was found, which givcs the genealogy of the Kadamba kings' from 
Maytïrasarman, the progenitor of the family, to Sintivarman. It 
contaias the following verse about Kakusthavàrman, the fathcr of 
Sintivarman :— 

This verse states that Kakusthavàrman made Gupta and other kings 
prospérons by gîving them his daughters in roarriage. Hcras thought 
that the Gupta kingChandragupta II had sent his courtpoet Kâlidâsa to 
the Kadamba king on the délicate mission of arrangîng this màrriage* 
This View of Heras is now sought to be corroborated by Sohoni by 
various arguments. 

The aforecited passage from Ksemendra*s work show» that 
Kâlidâsa had goac as an ambassador to the court of a fçudatory 
(sumanta)y whcre he was not oflfered a proper seat. But the Kadamba 
king was not a feudatory of the Gupta Empcror. He was ruling inde- 
péndently, So he may not hâve been intended to be referrcd to. Anti- 
cipating this objection, Sohoni bas devoted a fàirly large portîoiï of his 

6, LB,O^R.S.^ XII» part iv. 


article to prove that thc Kadamba kîng was not independent^ but 
feudatory, thoogh to a Pallava king. But this does not remove the 
possible objection. The words maharaja and sâmanîa used in that 
passage are related terms. The maharaja mtd.nt U the suzaraie of the 
prince who is referred to as the sâmanta and not an overlord politically 
unrelated to him. Note in this connection the use of api ïn the afore- 
cited prose passage from Ksemendra. If Kâkusthavarman, being a 
samantaoî another suzerain (like the contemporary Pallava king)^ had 
not treated Kâiidâsa with due honour^ it wouid not hâve been so much 
resented by the poet as when, he (the poet), beiag the acredited ambas- 
sador of Kâkusthavarman's own overlord (like Candragupta II) was 
not received with due étiquette. Tbîs is emphasised by the word api 
in that passage. Bssides, this passage must be interpreted in the light 
of the second passage cited above from the same work. From Vikrama- 
ditya's reply to KiliJâsa's report given therein, iî seems that the 
^-a/^î^^/a (viz.j the Kimtala prince) was spcnding his time in enjoymeot 
of pleasures, leaving the responsibility of governing his kingdom to him 
(i.e. to Vikrimâlity.i). So the maharaja referred to in the first passage 
aiso must ba the same, f^, Candragiipta II - Vikramâditya. Had he 
been a Pallava king as Sohoni supposes, how can the second passage be 
relevant in hîs case ? No Pallava king is known to hâve assumed the 
title of Vikramâditya. 

Sohoni accepts that Kâiidâsa was a court-poet of Candragupta II. 
He says that he was sent as an ambassador to the court of the Kadamba 
kiag Kâkusthavarman, We shall, therefore^ examine whether Kakastha- 
varraan and Candragupta II were contemporaries. 

It is difficult to détermine even approximate dates of the 
Kadamba kings ; for they hâve not dated their records in any era. Their 
capital was Vanavasî in the North Kanadâ District. After the downfall 
of the Sâtavâhanas in circa a.d. 230, Visnukada Cutukula Sâtakarnî 
established himself on the western coast from the Thana District in 
North Konkan to the Kanara District in the South. His inscriptions 
h'^v^ been fouad iabath thèse districts;^ Some time thereaftery the 
BrShman i Mayûrasarman rose îo power by his vaiour. Once upon a time 
when he had gone with his teacher to the ghatikâsthâna (examination 
centre) in Kâïïcî, the capital of the Pallavas. he was insulted by a 
cavalier of the local king 

*t> ■ 

?î^ T?5ïmïïf^iT SRëflîT çftioT ^Tf^^: I 
Being humilin ted by that incident, he took up arms. He is one of 

8. Ses Lueders'Lwf, Nos 1195 and 1021. 


the few Vedie scholars of aBcient times who distinguished them- 
selves on the battle-fields and founded kiflgdoms. Seing a Brâh- 
mana, he had a name ending in - karman, but his descendants, who took 
to the profession of the Ksatrîyas, assumed names endiog - varman, 
Ultimately, the Pallavas made peace with him and ceded to him the 
territory extendiûg from the western sea to the river Preha^â. Sohoni's 
view that the Prehara is identical with the Pravarà, a tribuîary of the 
Godâvarî, is unacceptabîe; for in the very begianing of his reign 
Mayiîrasarman's power is not likely to hâve extended from Karnâtaka 
in the souîh to the Godâvarî ii the nortb. The Pieharâ was probably 
some river in Karnâtaka such as the Ghataprabhâ or the Malaprabha.^ 

The Tâlagunda inscription ddscfîbes the following kiags of the 
Kadamba family. 




• î 



■■ 1 


■■■•I ■ ■ 


Only one inscription of Mayiîrasarman bas been dîscovered so 
far, viz., that^^ at Candravalli, which is in Prakrît. It mentions the 
Traikiîtakas, ÂbhÏTas, PaUavas, Piriyâtrîkas, Skasthâna, Sendrakà, 
Punata and Mokari (apparently as conquered by him). This description 
appears exaggerated. The record is not dated and so affôrds no help 
in deteraiining îvf iyûrasarman*s date. Kâkusthavarnîan's oWn copper- 
plate grant has been f>und at Halsï (ancient Palâsika): Itsdateîs 
recorded in the foliowing words^^— 

9. F.l; Desal identifies Preliarâ with the Malaprabhâ. A Hîstùry of Karnâîaka, 

M Mys, 4rck^ Sur^ 1929, p, 50. Prof. Niîakanta Sastri regarded this inscription 
' ;as'SpBrions- 

îî* Seethe texuiEed bySoioni in^3.C^.i^»/. LXrpp.^ 


ïîfet tîîïï^ «rçr^ig^m^ sïï^jtwrott^ 


This passage makes the question more complicated. It mentioBS the 
80th year of Kàkusthavarman himself as Yuvaràja. No prince is likely 
to hâve acted for as long a period as 80 years as Yuvaràja. So some 
scholars hâve suggested that it is a date recorded in the Gupta era. In 
that case Kàkusthavarman wili hâve to be regarded as acting as Fwva- 
r^ja in the year (80 + 319 =f) a.d. 399. He would then be a contemporary 
of Candragupta II, the patron of KSlidâsa. So Sohoni is inclined to 
accept this view. But a formidable objection to this view is that there 
is no shred of évidence showing that the Gupta era was current in 
Karnataka. In fact, that Samvat was not current in any country of 
South Indîa. The only exception known is the date of the Ârang pîates^^ 
found in Chhattisgadh. So the Gupta era could not hâve been used in 
the aforementionedHalsî plates. 

Some other scholars suppose that eîghty years is the period which 
séparâtes Kàkusthavarman from Mayiïrasarraan. But Mayûrasarman is 
not known to hâve founded any era; No such era is notîced either in 
his or in his successors' records. So this supposition is unacceptable/ 

Mayiîrâsarman's and Kàkusthavarman's dates cannot, therefore, 
bc determined everi approximately. An iEscriptian of the Kadambas is 
incised below that of Cutukulananda Sâtakarni on a pillar at Mala- 
valli,*^ from which we can conclude that Mayîirasarman flourished 
after that Sâtakarni, but afterhowmany years we cannot say, 

So the date of MayOrasarman cannot be determind exactly* 
Scholars hâve made varions conjectures about it. D.C. Sîrcar^^ places 
him in A.D 330-360, and P.B. Desai^^ in a.d. 325-345. Kâkusthavarnian 
was the brother of Raghu, the great-grandson of Mayîirasarman and 
succeeded him. We may, therefore, place hîm either in a.d. 410-425, 
or in 405-420. So he must hâve been a contemporary not of Candra- 
gupta Il but of his son Kumlragupta I. Kâlîdasa is not likely to hâve 
been sent as an ambassador to his court. Sohoni aiso is conscious of 
this. So he says, -Kâlidasa*s présent verse may even prop up the belief 
that it was as a resuit of his mission that a royal wedding was settled 
between a son of the Gupta empcror and a daughter of Kâkustha. But 
this cannot be regarded as a conclusive proof in any wayJ* 

12. £•./.. XI, p. 342 if. 

13» £,C. VII, pp. 252 and 147 f. 

14. Select Inscriptions (second cd.)> p» 473, 

15. A His tory of Karnataka, p. 58. 


IfsOjforwhat purpose did Vikramâditya send Kâlidâsa to the 
court ofKakusthavarman wào, according to Sohonî, was the Lord of 
Kuntaiâ mentîoned in the two passages ? Sohoni has made some coo- 
jectares in this coûnection.^^ They are as follows - (1) for securiog 
the Kadamba support in safcgiîarding the Gupta acquisitions in Sau- 
rastra and Lâta territorîes from Saka chiefs ; (2) for ensuring peacc 
between the Vâkâtakas and Kadambas ; and (3) for strengthening the 
Kadambas. Thèse rcasons are rîdiculous. The Gupta kingdom was 
séparât ed from the domînion of the Kadimbas by hundreds of miles. 
Between them there lay other states like that of the Rastrakûtas of 
Manapura. Besîdes, the cootemporary Kadamba kîng was a lascivions 
man. He required the help of Candragiipta in governing his own 
kingdom. What help could he hâve rendered to a powcrful and ambî» 
tious king like Candragupta, who was ont /to conquer the whole world* 
(krêsna-prthvi-Jaya) as statcd in SL contemporary inscription^^ ^t Vidisa. 
As shown beîow, there is no évidence that the Vâkâtakas and the 
Kadambas were then hostile to each other. They were not ruîing over 
adjacent provinces, So there was no need to send Kâlidâsa to establish 
peace between them - 

So Sohoni's attempt to prop up the previously expressed view of 
Heras abont the mission of KSIidasa has no basis. Since the time of 
Heras, new material bearing on this question has become available, with 
the help of whîch this problem must be solved. In fact, wc hâve shown 
elsewhere how it can be solved-^^ We shall state it briefly herc. But 
before we do so/we must dispose of another explanation of it in brief. 

Krishnasvami Aiya;ngar had suggested that in View of the close 
relation of the Guptas and the Vâkâtakas disclosed by the Poona plates 
of Pfâbhâvatiguptâ, Kâlidâsa was sent as an ambassador to the Vàkâ- 
taka Court. î^ The main objection to this theory is that the Vâkâtakas 
were lords of Vidarbha, not of Kuntala. They marri ed some princesses 
of Kuntala as recorded in theîr inscriptions. How could they them- 
selves hâve been Kuntalesas ? Besides, in those times, Vâkâtaka 
administration was carried on according to the directions of the Guptas» 
In such cîrcumstances is ît lîkely that an ambassador of Candragupta II 
was not duly honoured in the Vâkâtaka Court ? Aiyangar's theory is 
totally unacceptable. 

What is then the correct interprétation of the two passages cited 
above ? We hâve stated it elsewhere. But we shall gîve it briefly hère. 

16. A.B,O.RJ. LX, p. 16. 

17. C.J./n ni (1963), p* 35, 

38. Sce our Studies in Indoîogy^ 1 (1968), p* î ff. 

19. See Aîyangar, Ancîent India etc». I (1968), p. 120 ff. 


Accordiîîg to our récent researches, tliere was a Râstrakiita family 
ruling in the Krsnâ valley contemporaneously with tlie Vâkatakas. This 
territory was then known as Kuntala. The founderof this dynasty was 
Mâûinka, who ruled from the capital Mânapora which lie had himself 
fouiîdcd and aamed after hiiBself, fhis city is now represented by 
Maaa, th3 chief place of the Mâni taluka of the Satirâ District. We 
hâve recently edited a copper-plate grant of this family in the Epîgra- 
phîa Indîca^^ It descrîbes Mânanka, the progenitor of the family. as the 
illustrious ruler of ¥i,uni^\z, (srlman Kuntaïanam prasâsim), D,C. 
Sircar's interprétation of this expression as 'the chastiser of the Knnta- 
las' is ridicii]ous,2^ So îhis family was undoubtedly known as Kimtaïeka 
or Kuntahsmra, the lord of the Kuntala country . Sohoni objects to this 
interprétation on the ground that Mâninka does not seem to hâve adop- 
ted that title.22 He says that the title was adopted by Bhagïratha of the 
Kadamba dynasty. Thîs statement is clearly wrong. In the Tilagunda 
inscription Bhagïratha is described only as Kadamba'bhûmivadhU'Tucit' 
aîka-nàthah (the sole dear lord of the lady namely, the Kadamba coun- 
try). This makes 00 référence to his ruie over Kuntala. In fact.the 
Word Kuntala does not occur at al! in the Tilagunda inscription. Still, 
Sohoni asserts that Bhagïratha adopted the title of Kuntalesvara, while 
he dénies that title of Mânanka, though he is explicitly described as 'the 
illustrious ruler of the Kuntala country'. Strange indeed ! 

The inscriptions of the Vâkâtakas sometîmes mention their con- 
flicts and sometimes their matrimoDial relations wîth the kings of 
Kuotala. The Ajanta inscription of the reîgn of Vâkataka Harisena 
States that Vindhyascna had dcfeated a king of Kuntala. 23 On the other 
hand, the Pandarangapallî plates of the Râstrakiita king Avidheya 
descrîbe Manâàka as 'ont who had harrassed the countries of Vidarbha 
and Asmaka.24 Candragupta maintainedfriendJy relations with thèse 
rulers of South India. Some of them may hâve become his feuda tories. 
The Meherauli pillar inscription^^ which describes hiœ says that long 

20. JS-J. XXXVIÏ. p. 9 ff. 

2L The root i^f5 conveys two seases : (1) to govern, whenlts object îs some place 
or territory. See gj%^ ^Wçmçî ^î^^m^ît^^: in Raghu» XJ and (2) to chas- 
tîse when it is some living being. See m^ fx^mWîH^ in Vâkataka seals. In 
^tf/rf^ïf^rtS/îiprûiâs/M, theseiîseof governing isintended, The country where 
Mânâoka was ruling was included in Kuntala as shown by us elsewhere. See 
EJ , XXXVII, p. 14. Noue but a fool would chastisc his own subjeets. 

22* A,B.O.RX LX, p. 15. 
23* See C.LL V, p. 105. 

24. See 5ÇF5Î^R^f§-ïT^^^çf: EJ. XXXVII, p. 20, 

25, CI.L, 111(1963), p. UU 


after his death the southern océan was perfumed by the breezes of his 

It îs nowhere stated for what purpose Candragupta had sent 
Kâlidâsa to the court of Kuntala. Perhaps, he had sent him to see how 
the Kuntalesa conducts himself and whether he was likely to adopt an 
antagonistic attitude. Though Kâlidisa at first felt insulted as he was 
not received with due honour, he stayed at the court for sometime and 
observed the State ofaffairs there. He then reported to Vikramaditya 
(i.e. to Candragupta II) that the king of Kuntala was not a strong and 
ambitions man. In fact, he was dépendent on him (Candragupta) even 
for the administration of his own kingdom. 

Candragupta's pDÎicy resulted în the establishment of amicable 
relations between the Vakatakas of Vidarbha and the Ristrakûtas of 
Kuntala. We ïearn from Vakâtaka inscriptions that Narendrasena, the 
great-grandson of Candragupta married the Kuntala princess Ajjhita- 
bhattàrikâ.2^ She must bave been a princess of the Rastrakûta family 
of Kuntala, 

We agrée with Sohoni that the aforecited passages from the works 
of Ksemendra, Râjasekhara and Bhoja shed important light of an inci- 
dent in the lîfe of Kalidisa, but they must be interpreted properly in 
order to understand their full signifîcance. 

:;26»'.;'c;.i.i^,::¥,p.^.so. ,, 


TRIBES OF ANCIEN r INDIA by Dr. Mamata Choudhory, publi- 
shed by [Ddiao Muséum, Calcutta, 1977; MoQograph No. 7, pages 118 
withListsofTHbes (pp. 120-37), Bibliography (pp. 138-52) and Index 
(pp. 153-61) and 3 Maps ; PriceRs, 50.00. 

The book under review embodies Dr. Choudhury's thesis which 
earned for her thé degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Uoiversity of 
Calcutta in 1973. It coû tains a Foreword from tbe pen of no less t 
person than Dr. P. Roy, m.a.,, f.n i. (f.n.a.), formerly Professer 
and Headof the Department of Chemistry, Universityof Calcutta, and 
Director of the Indian Association for the Cuitivation of SciencCj Cal- 
cutta. We may introduce the book with the foUowing words of Profc- 
ssof Roy's Foreword : "It clicited high praises from her examiners as 
worthy of higher distinction in vicw of the standard of the thesis 
(thèses ?) for the Ph.D, Degree in the University which is rarcly found 

to attîin such a high order., From an impression of the work 

embodied in the thesis, I feel little hésitation to state that this publica- 
tion will serve as the most comprchensive aad valuablc work of the 
subject for the students and scholars of Anthropology." 

There are the foUowing six chapters in the book : (1) Tribe : 
Its Définition, Nomenclature and Qrouping; (2) Gcographical Distri- 
bution of the Tribes; (3) Physical Characters of the Tribes ; and their 
Ethnie Affiliation ; (4) CuUural Pattcrns of the Ancient Indian Tribes ; 
(5) Origin and Ancestry of the Existing Tribes ; and (6) Tribal Absorp- 
tion. The topics are not only of great interest to the students of Anthro- 
pology as Professer Roy has indicated but also to those of early Indian 
History and Geography. There are certain sections in which the iearned 
autboress has sucoesded in doing justice to the topics ; though that can- 
flot be said in respect of ail parts of the book. We therefore rcquest 
Dr. Ghoudhury to be especially careful in removing the blcmishes from 
which the treatise suffers luch as typographical and other errors and 
iûadequacy of the treatment of topics so that its next édition becomcs 


a more ussful book of tefcreace for the benefiit of oiir studeots We are 
just indicatiag below the lincs for such improvement, 

The name of Pargiter, which occurs in the book on innumerable 
occasioas, has in ail cases been wrongly writtcn as Targitar' (pp. 29-37, 
47, 56--65, 72, 83, 109, 140, 146). Likewise Sten Konow's name has been 
written as Stenknow' (p, 63, notes 263 and 265) and 'Watter's Yuan 
Chwang's Travels in India, VoL l or IP has been made *Watter's Hiuen 
Tsang*s TraveV (p. 109, notes 76 and 78). Ât p. 95, we are xo\à, **ln the 
Madras Presidcncy there is also a class of people known as Adi-Drivida. 
The prefix adi (old or original) possibly dénotes that the Adi*Drâvidas 
are the descendants of the ancient Drâvidas.- Unfortunately, Âdi- 
Drividi is the name fabricated and claimed by a number of underprivi- 
leged classes of Tamil Nadu in the récent past because they are inclined 
to reprcsent themselves as the real Dravidàs supôrîôr to the Tamil 
Brahmanas who are known as *Drivida Brâhmana', In the work publish- 
ed in 1977, 'Madras Presidency' is a misnomer For *Tamil Nadu'. 

- A more serions error is involved in what the authoress says about 
the Pariyas on the authority of an uncritical and irresponsible author. 
Wearetold that "the Pariahs..,^.. ,, represent the variant form of the 
CoduPâlayaor Piraya, a trîbs occupying the territory near Keraïa 
dufîng tbe reign of the emperor Asoka as mentioned in the Chapardagiri 
inscription/* There are several errors hère. In the first place, we do 
not know when 'the Chapardagiri inscription' was discovered and whcre 
it was pnblished. Secondly, no Pâlaya or Pâraya is mentioned in any 
of the namerons inscriptions of Aâoka. Thirdly, along with the Coda 
(i e. Codah or Coîah, -Goîa people'), most versions of Rock Edict II 
mention another people as Pamdiyû (KLalsi, Jaugada and Erragudi; with 
the a-mârrâ onxitted in yii in the Kharosthi of Shahbazgarhi and Man- 
schra) who are, however, called. P^^g at Girnar. This narae has been 
nnhesitatingly taken by ail epigraphists and historians to stand for 
Sanskrit Pandyah, 'the Pândya people.' Rock Edict II really mentions 
the States of the Colas, the Pandyas, the Kerala king, the Sâtiya (San- 
tika) king and Tâmraparnî (Sri Lanka) -al! lying beyond the southern 
frontier of As^ka^s empire, The introduction of the Pariyahs herc is an 
absurdity becaiise they were never the rulers of a State. In a similar 
context in Rock Edict XIII, usually we hâve the names of the two 
peoples joined in a Dvandva compaund, and the combination Cola- 
Pàndyâhis qaite easily intelligible ; but under what circumstances.could 
thcpowerful Coja ruling clan hâve been clubbed : together with the 
Parîah un^onchables ? - - . . < 

- ' - Likewise there are similar errors in statements like 'Hhe Bahlikai 
were for eigners, who came to India from Balk in Iran- (p. 51). In the 
first place, the Bahlika country is modem Balkh (not 'Balk*, the mistajtt 

1978^1979] REVIEW 181 

beiag repeated at p. 52). Sôcondly, Baîkh i$ net in Iran, but in thc 
northern area of Afghanistan to the south of the Oxus. Thirdly, as we 
had occasion to point ont, a canfusion has often been made by copyists 
of manascripts betwcen the Bâhlikas of the Oxus valley and the Bahikas 
of the Punjab sa that there is really no proof of the Bâlhika occupation 
of the Punjab. 

Récent discjveries hâve thrown ncw light on some of thc topics 
discussed. Tbos the discovery of the edicts of Asoka near Kandahar 
inthcGrcek aod Aramaic (Iraoian) laciguages and scripts, no doubt 
meaot for the Yavana and Kamboîa subjects of the Maurya emperor, is 
relevant to the location of the Yavana and Kamboja tcrritorics in the 
north-western part of the Maurya empire. 

Evcn if there may be a scope for différence of opinion on a few 
points, the section on Tribal Absorption in Chapter VI leems to be thc 
most interesting in Dr. Choudhury's work. 


"!f5(I^^W^WTO:, « ^ ?WRT^, ^ "ROT, 
Ç[ W Wfïï^FS^' |ft (cT. t II,iii, 12.1) Il 

fi ^5ft%^& 1 ^7 ^Sft tI^ f^:, çmift ^ #ï| 


^j^^ïï^i /^ «rfet^cT' i^sf^ sr^fN^^ ïT^ît^rfè «r^- 

1978-1979] 3ï^i5i%îi|^trfër^ lî^ i¥cïï % 

^m^ î^mr: ¥^^ - '^ ^t ^TïïFEég;' |c!îrt5 ^î^ 

îïipî 3 ^rg^ ifs^ f^ 3T^3[^: JÎSTOÏÏ^ îlî^'kîïFÏÏ fîs: ^^ ^ÎR, 

^ ^: 9ÏÏ^ (III, iv, 340 
^V^ ^TIRT^ "^^m J^^^ (in, iv, 35) 
3ï%^ïï =^ ^ÏÏ^^(III, iv, 36) 
m fèîfT^f^ "^^ (ÎII, iv, 37) 


fTgq; i 3Tcî: ^^m- ^lûn- ^Tm, îlw^ |m ô^^ \ t^ %^ 

iii, 3 3) 

«ÏÏÎTF^t' n (W. ^. 12.6) 

^içsi' if^ll (1.^. II. iii, 12.2) 

1978-1979] aî'sraricrsils^fsfWt ^FPî ^^ * 

%4 5fr îâ^T^T^^^^^ÎîM^ (II, iv, 9) 

l^îlïWMmr^ ^^^ ^T^f^: RÎèTrfeiï fcïïftig'^ ; ÎTI^F^ ^ lî%#^- 


1978-1979] 3î=p[i%îï|gïffHf^5t ^^i^ i%^ ^ 

Wï^w^^'^ # Msr^ '^W sTïfirïpra 1 «r^fi^ ^^ ç^îIïïîçîj ?î 

(I. ?i, m, iv, 34) 

^m^\^ m^m^ '^mm' ^'^ i' 


^mM =^ ^ïT^^ I' (^- \- m, iv, 36) 
'm flrf[^M% çfîg, i' (I. ^. m, iv, 37) 

ï#%^ - 5ig^m¥ srmti ^m^^\ çî^^ #?F^rf%^^iï 

1978-1979] ar^srjcfïï^fïr^àt ^T=^ïf f^îffr \ 



(gn^^?[ï^sîRfe: , 3Ï1: <?,\3, 1972) 

(Sri Vani Vilas Sastra Séries No. 1, Srirangam) 

3. ^?ïï?5f^ , ^Ilô[tfqaRmrf?î^ l (Mysore Ed. 1909) 

4. ^iMf^W, îi^*lTÎ%^t3r l (N.S. Press, ^^^1^ 

^gmW- cl^rf H^ Il 

I. gos^ - I; i, 6. 2. 11^0315 - lîl, ix, 26. 

3. : ^^m - Vî, xix, 4. ^M^ - II, i, I. 

- 5. îlcïï - IV, X. 6. H-IV, iv, 19. 

7. Sî^î? - VI, viii, 16. 8. il-I, iv, 10. 
9. ^^^W^ - I, 2. 


^^^j «2g#RfW: crilTOI^ HPPT: SIOTÏÏ^ "tR^: l «ïï^ 

^sT: m- mmmixHï m # i?RÎ|¥Pirsft ^ %% 5t# I ^r ^ 

10, e!# - VII, i, 3. 

11. f* - II, il, 8. 

WwFrf^i^ ^m" (#raTûw3i - 1, 139) ^ I 

1978-1979] aîl^Tfr^ srsïirg-: ïï^pr sîTqffR^ '^l 

nm: ^m^ f%s^ arr^^sc^î-cîf^w^ frrfq^-cf:^!^^^ gr^K^^^t 

^k^ï^îR^^^îTt STRfRïëîiï^ ^^St f5Tîst 'f^. ^t 

3"TRm W^m. V^^ fcïïï%3î^fRî îT^^ I tçw5:qjFrJ^îèîf^ sr^pj 
#Rnf#r ?iî3[[?%îïïë2f¥T ^r%'ïwî^ ^mjsm w^i^ ^^^^ ^ïç^ 

\^m 5ÏMSW îîsc^st ^nTii?rsi?î; ic2iïi^52ï5f^ îîf«T?É I n^ 

IlRîïSï «Çf II 


'^mmmm mwmm. ^%f# ^m, ^^ wFt %^: i 

"«"^W gw Wsim OT»i anrftaA. _„,^ , '^"^ 

1978-rl979] aîfcîWT^ ars^ïï'Sr: m^î^ sîf^R^ 1« 


1978-1979] 3t|^1% 3îS2ïïÇr: cFifpt oil«l^K«r 1v» 

5f5^?^ms3ïW-- 3ÏMM 5ïI2WTfî-' 3Tr^îî ^5 dlRî^^ "lf^5 ^ ôai^^i^ 

sfwèî^ Il 

w^HifTf: m^m I ff^i^rî^^^ ^^wrfïTïTR^: srcïî^rt£ïïïï% 

^r=qr^% ^^^^^Tïïïï: I si^î 3TîjqR{^%q^%(^ îîH|U|MÎ ^|M|H|u^- 

^Tir^W: Il 

5ïïïriR^?;ïrra*îôr^?^ïFrïï^ I T5r% i: iRd^'Ji'ij'î'ïïîoT 3^^ ^t^ 

■109- 2 '. .^ 


W^m- ^m^v^m^à^sk i ^ifw^ f^^ffera^ ^^ift^- 


,^ ^jrMÎ^i^ g fer. ftqr^ïïf^^ïftfcîî ^^r%^>r ^whtïrw 

1^78-1979] ^'T'^^^q- - ?%T^Hr^5tï5r^KcI^^TqT^=5Rr: ■it*} 

III. ^Â mHpm^^è^^m^ï^^^^iï^^^^^, t^- 

^^^ Tgf% f^îÉ flfgmsR^^îsïiFJT: 5r*ïïïFçî(T^q^i:% 3T?5R^ W^^- 

^n^C^^ i sg^T^r^^ srsïs^it^r^ l%^=^r^^ ^i^^tTHi^j^r^g; sTr^s^rr- 
M^^^Rr ^rr^Ffr^îT 2iîT2F^:: :^?gf%: ïî ôg^T^f^rg^rf^ 1 n^fè^- 

^F^»Tî^^ô=qîrTërTEI%f%: 11 

m% ïï^^ f^5r srr^îT^^^ qp^ %^«rp|: 1 îrqîTFgpfçr %^ ^m mw^jf^- 


sr«rfrFcrtT^sf 3F^; ^f^ f^fq^ffiR^ il 

^m^ m^sf^ f^^^à ^r^fci çiïtTfîRre fïï^q^f% »Trgçf^'ï: i 

%%q^Hnprïïf^5înfr^ ?îT^5R^Af tl^?^f^^ tcfl^f^ïïï 

àq^i' f1^ Il 

VI. ï^^mr ^mm.^ ^?T^^'d^=qîïï*ri^i%cr: i i?rT 

1978-1979] îît^8^? - MtT^m^qîïT^Rcî^ITt^ïî: ' VJ: 

^^m^f (1) 3Tf=gPTR: q^éqî^52î^fr?r3qqi%: , (2) qi^f^éfiHcrr- 
^^m 1^: qr%g; |fe srâfrïïrcr^: , (}) t^: ^tf^r-' f% r^ t^j 
^^^^, tîT: q%^ fcïïTaftïïrgTîr^fPTfè: , (4) ïîTîïïôs-^TTftîïr ^^qïïï'ft^^ïï; , 
f^rf^^oTRt »Trf^#?tfeî^Fi3^ ^^^ ^^Tmk 1 ^ 3 ^iïîtsîT 

îT 39T î^^^rir icïîrtT: ^fç^xiî: q^f gî s^çq-Rf^l: 1 ^^ q%w^qr- 

35q^ Il 

,.■.,, H,' , . ^ ■■'■,■■ ■■■ 

^sÎT3^'Tîr55^cî I ïfmïïr^sr^fTR^f 'ÏÏRW 3[=giS% ^W^^: «^»T^3- 

^RT%îsî5rr5^^ïï: ^^^^ron^^ ?Tr53[tt ï^Rra-,, g^^ 

VIII. «TTl^l^Ç^, 5«î^5 ^5, ^^= ^'ïs^j: ffè 5r:%, tw: 

TfR^^ !T%«Trqrnîciï#^^ ;ïï^f?r^^r q^ôrî^qj^^^l^ fS^rr^fg: 
R%»Tîqrî^^^Nîr>r qr^^; ^ferm^TOt q%f^fè q%ïïîqrxr: ^^r^^r 

^^^fF^qïïïïfîT, ^^mîïïFtsfq^ ^TTf^^qïï'l^^^ 

ffè ftr^R; Il 


1. sg^T^fT^: 

2^ 53^9W1<Î 

^^mf^-' Chowkharaba Ed., 
Varanasi, 1976 

^^RT^f^^R;: qf^çî^î5îsfTg^i[CRi^r§5r- 

HfftdîqqtoÙtÇf:, Acnamalainagar, 

3' **it?(€<^*i. 

Sri Sudarsana Press, Kanchi- 
purâm, 1900. 

q5rré wî ^^1^ M%[-' Il ifer I 

^PîH*- >^cïsiiè^ %qr^^ fer ^ilïî3;^i%f&^^^ 
qïFcîsrRsf^'v sTpifM wm m fe4: ^%Ptw: çf^^q^lR- 

ft3}fft^te'T^#& ^«â I w l^ïT 3#: ïï^ f^ ïRrmè^ 

■ W 'iii . 11! ■' ■ ! ■" ■ PHi M ii w 'ii M i ■! II ..,., ■■iiii II <f « m ■ ■^. 1 i || i'i—«ii II, ■■■■■ ,.;. ^Mii||iiiiniipi iiiiiipffipiiii I., , I jii^ I wipn m m i..iiiiiiii r m Tiiiiir-iiiin i i in i.Miiiiiiiiiir ,, :i,p, iii| ,ii., „, ,. 

1. msw^ll,nl2. 

2. 5!15S[!îii%sRïïÎTO, Cliowkhamba Ed; (1934) p. 317. ■ 


w^îîéft ^^r^^è ^=^ ^^m: m^^ mtï ^^^i^^- 
lèsfq çR^g; t^«ïrft ^ïïcsrîq^ï '1^^ ifr^' it^ifq r^ïï: ^ig^ # i 

:^t 1 §iir îrr% ïpîfcî ^cai^r %^q5îTîîî{3F2î^^I?^îT*Hm2ît5îRf|- 
3, Ibid, p. 318. 

l'978-1979] fl-îrrfïr^^I vngjfWW^fiit^r ^ ^c^ft^^î^: fecftqr'T^ ^vs 

î^cf #5|^^' îT^Scftlif q%3Tt ôTR'^i ¥^2T^ ff^ ^ïtCî^TÇîTI^R: I ^ =q 

m mr ^3[3f$f^%fTt^ ^M %î3; I %ioi ?ii^î ;iT2içî ^% ^■l^ 
siï»TF2îr'TÎ%: 1 w^ ^2TF2ï^îi%ci^f2î sritex^r^ 1 

5. Ibid p. 320. 
4. Ibid. p, 319. 


cr#w %^j ''tVir ^^ 5frf?«îî%i=it^fîr^'kïï' ^csî^^rrïï .%hrt^ 

6. See ibid. p 320-32r. 
7- Ibid. p. 322. 
8. Ibid. p. 324. 

1978-1979] ^qr^raÛ^T »TT|ïfl[îïRrqBCraT =g ^c^q-R^R: îlcftîîT'l^ '>^ 

l|^l"2î[^£B'TïR2î2Trsî«r m^ ^^^^ \\ 

%t2Pïï: ^^: I ^m^ ïf f|#3ïïaf^ I ^W ^% 5TFÏÎ ïfBpçfttïîI^ 

ïTp2m£rc2ïqr«ï %îf^fF^ %% sg^qi: i sg^qfwf^s^ ^aii^^ ^çn ^fiRsiq 
%fîîîFcîrfç2T iTfîïïm^ ^fm[- ^j^im'^-i çnw^î^r^H^ i ^%- 

îTwotrqifHr^q^^R^ ^wifif^ e^ïï^^ H^^rr^ï; i ^^^ m<Â ^^^- 
qj^mfè-^^F^q'î; i ^^ %^ mm ^ ■ ^^^^j ^'^^^^\^mmw:^u 

9. Ibid. pp. 329 iF, 


^^ ïï^scîli sRîïïwt sfFfïï^r^^ wftfcr ^v^m^ \ ^^#r m^4- 

»T# 1 -crfèsr 53TRRFrî^îf«î: i ïï^siiî^ôïirqf^ %ftw ^ït^t' 
%s2è # ^JTpTsqrcr^qrqïï^^T îfr#^cî'i;i are îrw ïï^scîI^^: 

'îîôfF#îft «ïï^cF!?? %,^m: I sg^qfrmMiïï t^^SfTF^Wlf? #^ïï^l 

10. >^irWl«r:, l^'fewcîil'h^îicl: (Chowkhamba Ed. 1976), 
pp. 113 C 

1978-1979] ïï^n^^Û^T HTSrfRRT^'teîI ^ Wc^qk^^^: Ts.^m'^^ %^ 

3f^7%%^^r3f^°==îrqfRT3f^fBînî]^ ^^ ft %i # ïï^sr- 

11. Ibid. p. 119. 

12. Ibid p. 124. 

13. Ibid. p. 168. 


:■;■;■. 14.; : ■ Ibid., •.p.;;i30. ■■ , 
15. Ibid» pp. 113-114. 
16; ^ôfi^^^cffT^: ^ i960) pp. 521 C 

1978-1979] t^Tira^^r^T ïniffwffl^CraT ^ îB^c^'Hfft^R: rs^l^ ^^ 

^fzB^^J^\^ ^-^^^'. , ^^j f^^mm ^j^w^^ ^K^^^^ ?î%ïïrfè- 
tîcî5R>ïïFî Tïè ô^m\ ^ srrè: ?5î£ÇîrrTî)#^K 3i^sfi5rf%^qîî[îft^[^ i 

^mT^^W^^^^H^^^ ^2RcîT5f^è?^?^^fï^iïï?T^ ^aR^Î^PRô=qîiï^: I 

^î^% ^^ ^M^T ■|2î#%^ l%îmi^ if^ 1 ; :,; .-/^ ; 

17. »TII'Cf¥T'ï; (Sudarsana Press. Ed. 1900) pp. 60 ff. 
109 — 3 

r fv 


W^]^ ^^^ 3^f&r gfeï: f% ^W^ ?' 
Rfwrf^ I cîsïï ^^m'. m^: ^ ^^ ^m f^ S^: 


^^7cf! ^5Tr«îrq; ?^5î Bî^q^îF TÎ^fx^îr sr^^qr 3^M ^ht^J ^^^î^ i 
"TSïicît 'cî^cn^5r|:^' |f^ I %^t qqÎ3rqf^%ci2ïq%ïï: , ^^q^^^î 

»Trïqt3fl(cq|% I <fcRît|t€ît tf^ftefe WT^' # fcT^ 
^rrô!^rçr:,^f^qrsfq ÇfR^qRïTqîîW^^ |g^, ^«ît cROFg 

^^? qi3 ^Iqïéîîr # 'tw'pr-, crfl ^Ronif^f^^ ït^^^j^ stfïï^^ 

^«l^Rîq ïrfçrgrçî q^^ ^ 'sn^^' |tïï q^T 3tB# ^^i \th^- 

fiïf qisfïïw^ ÇF^îf^f^: R^^qr^ ii 

1978-1979] ^^4lî%: \^ 

^-çrrT'3;' |f^ ^t^Jîfîrïi^rRï ^f% ^t^ mz^^ (mai) ^^w.^ i ^^ 

3. §*rs[mïr5=5i:?w: - p. 53. 

4. Ibid. IV - 3<5, p. 53. 

5. în^ï^^ra, - ni. 22. - 



3Trwîi=^%r5|éTsq #tî: «rc^é %cq q-firg: | ^[^rgçrçîî 

srf l^" (J 

6. :r?sîFr^fH^ V - 21. 

7. l^s[rîf^»^îl IV - 32. 

•^^^ „, ^ïn^T'T: VIII -24, 

9. ^«ft^ ^tp: - Réf. p. 4. : : - . • 

10, «iWïRpîf^:, V-i-i. _: 

lï. •ë<K<J«^R?ïïî; - VI - 17. 

1978-1979] ^q^nfè: ^^ 

^HF^ (^^li w^ fg^rr ?^% =^î^q[r5[îî5[. ii^^ 
m 'à^ mmrwà (iii- 12) s^ i ^ît^î^i^sî: ^?^¥f«r 

ïîTîï^ ïROTRlf^ ïî^^ ?M ?î^c2TÎ: ^T^F^f^îr ^=¥1^^^ 1 ^ff^r ^â[q 

sTÎîr^rRcrîROTÇFTr^^rsi ïrFT%ïïïss«fFFPïï s-qR? ^^ ^^ \ m m^ 

^^: «îîiife fcîîsfç^îfè vr^ 1 =^qi^ ~ %p^^Nt' ffè q^î 
^fcpiT cRSîïF^îi: ? ^cfpzi?#ift' |fg[ qî^fîrr fef^q^fRsfq îf 
lafÇ^TîFcît #^5J5^î (w^€ï^', ^^ 'V |fê q5fïïf%ifffg^) ^^ 

12. As (jucted in <^fil^* - pp. 53 - 54» 


^ëf^ïft^q'ct ^'T^ï=5[?ï^ %^5fîïiîii f^f ^f ffri^ 1 

13. Ref : Commciitary on ?''-"irf^5nîr, 01 the very first verse. 

14. g?[5^ïï5ïn^iR?r^: , ^m m^ ^^mn, (P. 3. NSP, 1920}, 

1978-1979] ÇF^^^jra;: v^ 

çR-^^î^f^ 5r5fî%^^fïfe - '^i^^tr^ fîffé^ïïf ^#^%î1îî 5rf%^ 
wfsF ? spfôT5rtr?f ^cît 5R§T f^ r^^ïï ? gif msfa^cr i îfsîer|- 

^fel[-5JWt^îT ^ïFf3T: ; ^ï 3, 'S^^'^ ^^S^ qM%' tel" ÇFFÎ?cî^cï% 

^5^ I 3raH, qt^Hi mm mmïm^^^tï^^^f^j m 1 

^Tcît^qïïrRîSîrsîT 51^ ^:' là I 


HFm k^^ Mmi, % wî^ ^sm e^sTf^^ i ci5[^îqTîîspî3; ; 
^mfM ïïf# 1 fe: "ÎÎ5 K^ m, li 

m ^ 4^: mf^ wi^ nmmàm t^sc^, ^m^m^Bm 

■6. W«<t-P.37. Di. P.l. Vaidya Edn 
17- «Rill: - H, ïi, iSp. 

1978-1979] çrJ^4lî%: V3 

q^gçzï ÇîFïrq;, ^îSîfe;, ^sTij^ïf ^î^^îTRîT ^îl^ffRa^mf^OT ^sqïTT W?5^ 

18. Î5i^qTcîBrEr: - IV, 49. 

19. ^52n^^: - II- 38. 

^ f:^ 

1978-1979] 'Çr^q^fè;: Vi* 

çF^îf 5qiïï3%"^?f ^^w, (^^) ^m^m ^fk^J^^ ï^rg^ssf = i srg- 
^ci%tïï m^ trf^m^^^^ ^o^îT m^^ ^^^\^ i^méf^ ^f|cf^- 

"3^5Fî'7î=^^l5fiSfs^RîTFf I 3^^ f^STH 

^S^ /Çîiï^ >5^ f^v m %^ i ÇF^^rk f^fe^ ^TO I ^TM^fî^ 
"W^^t^: ........ ^^i ^ ïïlT^cîî, Ig^^ ^'#^^ 

i^cî^ç[?^îfqR^^^^^ f^cfipq^ q^, %ïîî%g: 5f#rf«îg, ^ï^m^ ^, 

32. ^^cH^- ni, p. 85. N.S. Edition - t897- 

33. ^^?p^ - p. 209, Dr. P.L Vaidya Edition. 

(Violine, a musical instrument as an accompaniment) êF^t^sr- 

^T35^piFrrïî'3; I m^^^ (mm-.) ^?fl: i 1%^^ ^^M â" %^ 

<'9Tïr4srrs^ mm mm- m^^^^^^ i cî^ïï =^ ........ 

^^^^m^^^^J^, g^^^^^^îl: crtmé ^^^- 

'mîfê "-^ ?RrR 1 

24. Réf. Malliaât\a's Com filR:çn=*T?: - 1-8. 

25. I^^tHï; - ïR#3SM^: - pp. 41, 42 isf s. Edn. 1897. 

1978-1979] ÇF^iT^fè:: -. Vv$ 

f^=^fîciïiiÇ2î =^ m^^ ër^^ 1 cf5f ïïfWRcîqTSïïrîîRT îTR^^^n- fsR- 

^.^ ^j^^m^-^n^^ m^^ m^ ^r^ ^r^r^ f#^ sp^gr 511=^= , 

^=^g=t5^urHTïTr^ ïïï^îïl^f^^MrT'Fg'î,'^^ Iczrr^è's^f^ ffe^ 

^èr^ir II 

^î%g ïT^^ftër 2fîés4 l^'ÏÏTf^-'' Il f T% I 
vin- iii - 14) '^^^ #^ ôfHtsoF: ' (STST. VI -il - 11 1 ) 1^%?- 

26. fïTIC^HT: - 1-8. 

37. ^tîi5T5=ïftî%^RT3î«Tîî;- I, xxiii, 2. 

28. Ibid. vér. I. 

^^3Ï '3[^2î: I cf^4 'f^rîîî#=^ sr5iï%SÎ%:' (3î@L V-iv-î22) ft 

«r^w^ ^s^^ 3Tî^^3fr m%m msmi ^m \ w^^^^ Mtrsw m^ 
^^m^ - ^rPïTsê^r ^<ïw^?ïcî^ fîfîfTtr% I ^ =q ^f^- 

29- Réf. Govindaraja's com. on the Râmiyana I - xxiii - 2. 

1978-1979] ^^: >f«. 

p^^^îf^w îïcî^It^^?m §iIs^ Il 
sriHTR îTRfir I M^i ï^^{^R¥{sî%Jîi^ïï^îîfe I â[?r^% t 

^^î^ 3 ^R^^iïïîmFctr^f^ ^^^ w.i 1^ TOPïïÇî I cri^^%- 

30. Réf. com. of Govindaraja on îÇWFTir - I - xxiii - 2. 
109 — 4 


g^s^f?^ ^ f^^r^^^cT: I îTicTF ^^WF{, Rtr^r^ e^és^ ^ir îtcfr^ 

sfR T^cqRotrt/ sF^^iïïfera ïï^^p^.' f fg; ^rl%^ s^ïï^^ït ^wt^ ^^ïï- 
sTR^r^) 5î^qqTfïr ^m^, cisiïsq gfïf:, s^^ë^ïï ^iiïTtffrr% g=^4 

;çr%^Hiff 5q^?[^^ ^HT??^^ aT^|# T%t«T ^r^ TTS: SM-ÇTÇffct 
^FT^WTcïfRHfïI^q^ ^f Fiïfè^^ ïr^fïT^r^Fi^ q^3>SDïïîg[ ^ ^Ff ^fïïs^ï- 

^r^ï5[2^ ^^ Kf>^^^^^^^ w^^^i^^=ô^ ôfr^^rr^g^or ^- 

U^: ^T^Çî? ^TOFïTS^firïT f^tr^q-^cf^f^pr SicrMIcl^qsftM ^jqîfîr^rRr- 

■ ^1^^ ^^ 

31. Ref, com ^TO^^cqfir on the word '^k^^^ in the stanza ^#^- 
^rô5#[^ô5' etc. ofî%¥:^ll 

33- ^^?=^ - Dr. P.L: Vaidya's Edn. p. 4i. 

1978-1979] 'EF^'TIEfè: «it 

3îWiïîpfT^wfem f^^rm!" (at about 7-30 pm.) 

(afterU-OOnoon) ^ ^f^'^Pftfè qfcîfô? ^ïM^^ gf^: ^5^ 

34. qïï^ï^ - Dr. Vaidya Edn, p. 47. 
$5. ibid. pp. 47 and 48. 


• ?t ! 3T5r ^rrfTÎ^^iT ^^ÎH^^TT S^g^èïï =^ ^sfèF^^^^^s^ 
ÏT, ii, 11) l^^^^f^W^: I '^5rrfÇ?î%«îB=^' (^m. V, iv, 91) li 

?^^ 3Fcîi^5r; r '^rtn k^^'-' (mj. v, iv, 88) lîcr ^ti^; ^s^f^ïiir- 

^¥: I 'arts^cn^î^' (aîsr. Vill, iv, 7; 1^ ïî^ "ïï^^ i '^MITIT' 

7l%' (rr, iv, 29) %pf^ #wrs^ JfèrfcîT ft ar^^i: i" sîti^ts?: 

'm !Tcft%i^5ik çT^t^îîFSïïg; ^ô[rf^DrFcît ^^m^ i i^=^f^ 

^f^^m^ ôTîêqs^f^ wmT^ sï'TOfîf^'^^, 

f^srw^^^ îiM'^ ^ îî^^ (q^ ^g^) 

36. ^îR#5r: , I, iv, 3. 

in <;^^ '•'^m. sïinéïrriHrT on the above. 

[;, pp. 14, 15 and 16 (NS. Edn. 189 ). 

1978-1979] ^^?îfè[: ^\ 

gwq^: gsofërl ïr%^ #5T^é i%fqt ^rfçir: ii'^V 

^'^0^ ^1^ (^ fW?) #?r^ ?^^Ç{R^ ^3[^ ^ïTPFîé 
^f^^ 3RÏÏ 5f^^: I *|ïï=^ fe fe ^ =^' (srei. V, ii, 33) 

f^: ïïlWW ^r^ "T^^W: 3#îî^: laWRl^ q^f^ f^^tef 

39. #Effeï^ - ïPnîHs^Rr:- p. 55. N.S. Edition, 1897. 

40. ^tiT^î^^ïî; - IX ~ 4. 

41. l'Uïtïr^fcî'^ - VU - 65. 


fsrfîrl: w^-.^ i a#iî ^zirr^ ^f&r ^^ i ïïct i^^ ^ïïj^ ^é^ 

T^^ I cî?ïï eiïï^ #^ ^sri^HT srg^t, q^of^ ^ À^^-qf ^ ^ i 
siï=^^^ 5^1^ 3^ #2î^ I (3T5r #% '^^^^' fi % 4^^q^ 5qr 

«fïï 51Tifd^^#T: 9T5^q^q^çî5nïïtïï: ^^^TRcïîîiï^st ^Wm^ 

ff 5FFït I 'f^=^ fqï îî^^ f%qi 1% =q' (3îsr. V, iii, 33) ?fè ^^ I 
'^' ?cïïfî T^ïï |ïR , fe^^ sR2î^ ATf?r: , gsrr ^ i%î%îî, l%fe^ # 

cf^cf (ïï?îïTrf^^fîg) =^ ^^^■ 1 g^MOT5?9T îTcTïiïfeîRFIsî: I 
îl^, 3ÎT: ^' (m^ %m'') ^: 3TT^5r: fi 3qr^^ I ^ÏÏM^cI^f^ 

1978-1979] ^P^ffè": ' ^ 

1%^5r: ïTÎsïrmçîî sïir'i'ïTi 7%tr^^ qfèçirra; ^t^bt^î ^è^wr^î^ i 

^ffHt?rqT33c[aTH (critical édition) ^^%^ !ïï35Tti?^'3; "^i^ ^m^ ^ 

'sî^^ 5R^ f^ ôîn-^2îTÇFRr: "TI3 ff^ ^ttoïï %,, 5?r '^r 

ff^^ep: f^%3i^^ ^^m^ ïïF^ ^T^iïR I ?|,^ =^ê, ^off # f fè t| 

l^fe ï^^^^R: >1^f^5Ï^: I ^frs^fo^feçf^ 3Î5Î f^î^TS^ 

^^^^ ^.^ ^s^qH^^j ^iwfer ï^ff ^5t fcigfèi 


^ ^^1^% Rf^îTr% #fl?5 I 3î^ ïï^Vg I çf^^gRT f^l|or- 

§ïft^ffiçf w^M ^j^m #Nïï[^ i 
^ïï^ïiqm ^r^'î^^ ?ft^=^^ fw îîïTîft 

^5§îr3#Pî ftfRRî ïRî# ^^; ^ïï^ ^ft- "^im^m 

wà ^ra Rcf^f^^îmra; i msf^ m^m^ wsEw%^ ^m^ 
^FT^£fi^ «îRhifî qi^H^ #; 5[^^ - «rot 

^ ^m^iï^m^m m^ ^ ^^ ^ï4 ^^ûw^w^ 

I. ^nTFf«u^(Gita Press. Gorakhpur) fRT. €.-•)-#, "^. 
■ ,109-5 


K^j^^ ^fr^îT 1%îR ^nrPT ïï^ff : i ^Rfè ? ^tqïïiïïïî^ ïï^î ^ï^tr 
£fi03çsf 2î§Tr çTig; ^«ïï 515ÏÏI: <t?r; i 

ÇT^îlcïrîît Tr^TTOTt ^'^t, rr^1%ct ^ #f^^ ïr^% îT^gïrfcr: ; ^i%é 

'ÏR'T^:) srrW- *^ft<t^ err^ftif^l'^*^ W%: «l|cr+fl«hl^i<-%î)M'|<^m3^«T^^ 

1978-1979] ?ll-ïT5Tr*îtfeUîïïq'aTrfcn^: - tT# ^ mé: 4^ 

(Brokei) ^ ^i#cî;?Gj^r s^fci ^^TÎ^ ^ïR ^m^sii^ 3^2151 m srfe 

STcîf^ 1^ cTsrr ïï^îîCRrïî==cît ^^^#T; e^ïRf^: ^ïït^tJr: 2î^r £{c2ïï5îïïlïï 
sfSTTrf^ Rîjfïï "^gi^ ^5 ^Î*T^^HT^Ç!Ï ^^T^SR^ ïï^fd g^ôt 

4.. See under /?(3m5>'tf«û!, I, ii, verse 16. 


^5^^or ^ci^ 1^^ I^Rot ffe'3,? 2?t cri? ç^ ^# 
cTwî^ 5^îîr^ Tr#^ l^^i^: j I? ?3^ ^^^^ I 3Tsm ^rf 

iï'Wsm^ ^i^ï^^^S^ qpiî STHiTïr 1^^ 1^ 5#: 1 

7. 3rfÎT;3H!«iî; (Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi, 1965) si, 1 'sT. m. 

8. ti-^l-îî!*: (MM. S. Kuppuswami Sastri Re$. Institute, 19U), 
P 163. 

- 1978-1979] Mtqig[T?ïïtR><WH"ll1ciK: - # îpt iW: ^ 1 

^^M 1 ^ wo^^mw ^ssw( in^^tis^m. - 

^^^fvr: îf?Sïf^^: ^J; ^^tf^^^ ^SR^oS^îï Wfsft% «ïïfcT I 

% ^ft 3 «î^^ïïi^ ^^^m: "^m^ 'T^^ 'ETg^^î-"^ I ?ns%i 
srist ^' «ra ^ % ^^î^ HÎcîgt ^' |f^ ^w^: ^ ^ ^^ ? 

9. ^îMïMfn (Gaekwad Oriental Séries, Baroda, i9h) p. 7. 
io. s^ïTM^: (op. cit.) p. 164, 
iir ^«ï, p. 164. 


ïïSTîïif OT - 5^^==^ 'Eî^pçof ç^?c2ïf sTïï^ 5iï^%; ql^çrrg; 
m^'- ^mn, ^^ ^ H^^fmm^ ^ïïftsrvritîî ^ %i^ 

^^mm m 3T?F^ ^mH ^^i I^îj^crî; i qt 3 «ft^i^viirq^qi^: 

12. ^RRWtî, f%%. g-. 1<:, #. ^<t,. 

13. ^WTîmq,, ari'ir. i=r. «3, 'à. n-^^. 

14. 3îf*r?iR?ii*^cfrM,, ïmtsf: 1 

15. mf^m - V^-^ '. 'rat ^nTmracRiçt ^|^^^. 'fr?jftM%pr;ï' ^, 

i 978- 1979] ïtfT5r?îfi"f%^ÏÏT2rinT^cTH:: - tr^ îîfiît ftîTO: ^3 

'îr%t Hïm^ I ^i^ mmt: ^m-^ ^, ^^^m ïïf^i? ^^m-' 

ÏSJ^^:^ "^^ - MTT^é ^IÇ'fti^ FTFîra ^r^-é ^l^S'^^Plt ïTS% 

^ïïïïïfej "^j^? ^mïf w^^ f%1%^ !Wî5î^ ?ït^j^mwuK^i^3: 

ï6. ^BTôïTïftïfRfT, p. 7. 

17. i;iinîm^, awr. ^. '^», ^. To. 


?Rj% ïrrlïï 1 cfsïïfl - tiHr^vrt ^rr% iFNfTè ^i^s^ gr^^ 
^ïï^f%^Hkr: ^îsifciHd^i, çrtîîsrHrrîîPïï ^TFrrïr^M^fîTorrîït ïtrcîT^- 

wN^ I 

1978-1979] #fn:TÇîfri%^mR'^^m?:: - ^ ^^ ^é: ^v 

m^^ m^ H^' \ qt i Tf^^^îTst ^T^ sra^TRcî^r ii=55?î^^^ 
^Pm^ ^m^^i ^^K^m^m^^ ^rs^^^rarfli: cRarT%îFrRt2ïïïT: i 

ïir1^«rr^ sr%t ^.... ...ii^' f^î% 

19. m^, 'sî. <;v. 

109 — 6 


^^^ I cT^FF =^F^^2î# ^^^-1^ ^^f^# ^wm^. RTfôF^; gîqr^=^£Fm^|î^T 
%f%^ fr% 5|-^5Fï?-5rof^gTf%HÎîFîr i cî§ïï =^ ôîîf^^FïïFPFF^rorsR: 'm^^^ 
^ t sfFir: wïïïïjT^ ^?rfîr: w:' fm i 'î^ grffq- ^M" i:^r f^^K^fè 

çfi^FïïR xï?îfiSÏÏ^F^[Oît ÏÏFïîHFfe'f^iïîî^ 1 ^S^ mi^^J ^'^^ÎT: ^W^]^ 

=^îa[<r: 5pr^ ^cf f%5î^ ^rcr5% ^P^5% f ^1%^^ «î^ ^of^g^é ^fiîf^ï'îft^- 
cîF^iTFW^ fj% gTpgcqî^zn-îî: ( 3TcF W^^Hrtr^jjjîT^t ^^i f^m^mt 

^:' ^^ ffè 4^^>Fî5:5qF: T^^^îï f^%F: I 

«î^ïT 4^%^S% ^m^ f^ ^^ f% EFf^qR^FSRF ^5fî f^F 

^é 4-^^ R-^cRF ft^^îïKTÎd 4 W'^if€?|fi^%ÇT^ïf ^î|:%lâ iÇep^T 7ÇF: 
23. tirpft^rêllcn, 'i-'i-'i^. 

1978-1979] ?ftJT5r5=ïïïî%^TfnîFn^^îR: - tr# ^ÔTT f^îTsf: %^ 

ira :îrr%r ^^^ m.m^\: t^^%^ Tf^Tforcn ; ^^^^^ 'w^€i ^t- 
^^ ^^ ^mi\^im-^j ïrr^^q^ ïïtf^sfsiM wf^- ff^ i '3;#fi^ 

^^ I 

24. t-^. '^-T--^-^. 

25. iM^wifiiq; 'î-^-H-'i. 

26. Um^iT^, 6IT5Î., ^. V, #. ^3 C 



^%^^î^ ïr53T;îr?^cR wl^r^^ ^^ f% ^^^ ^ ^sreiR- 
îîf cwgie^î I 

37. Sce the Rsimséramï, undcr tlie Amarakoéa, I, vii, verse i. 
28. 'wt'biiRi*, «rfèr. «, 'St. ^ii<:. 


Ï978-1979] #ïârT5=;frî%^mTîTirrïraT^: - tT# ^ %ïT^: ^«^ 

flT^îî^^% ïT=r% I 1^^^ f^^^: fap^TsI q%f5T^ ^fè "îg! ^'^ ^îïïfeîT 

3T^rssf - - ^,^ ^fl mr^ k^ 4w^ ^^\% f^^r^ ^ ^۔ f ^^^f 

fe"^ra; î^^rsTra; çïJftT^iK ^îtm4 ^^^^ ^m i /rt 3 ^^^t *^î ^ 
R^R f q^^çg ^1^ %# ^^'ik 11^^ 

^tftïT^:- 'îffxfiûcïïï ^çïTcfï^^ ^^^ f^r^ ïi^rtr jïïisrttït, 
îîsrq^cî - ^5=jftî%: çïïïîpf^ ïîRsira ^ïwr^ 'pr ^ïï. %ft^^?% ^m 


^^ mj^ cf||îî ; ^^-^ lcf<ï; ?tI g^l^î i ^^ ^m fïïfr?li: 
^^ï «ïil"^r ^F^:^ # %Tfi^ I ^f%^: 9Tmf^ r^^K: ^^j ^ ^mm 

'^'ïï £rr5^%: ?iïm^ mï^m^^wm w^^^ ^fe ^-ïïsh ^^pr 
'^ e piwir q[fe#^qcr: ira- ?wrm^ ^ifïï sr^^r i^wm 1 w^ 

W^%^ «Hcrifll^HI 5^5|fR£R^iiïï^WÎ3^sqgTts^: ïf cl^ff «TS: >% 

mis^ ^M^-mm toïTîjp^ fi wm i^ïïi gfemri ?>^i - 

30. If^5^iim, \.<iA. 

1978-1979] ^q-^ÇîTTRî^ffRirRcrR: - W ^j^ rm^: v*1 

3T5frssi: - ^^m m^i'ê^^ ^^i^m, ^'wipq mi^^m^ wï^^k- 

5T^* cl^î^ #^ Iwfè il 
^ ^qtJïf ^ÎIW ÇI^FTr ^ÏÏFT 1^* T%^5# i 

^K^m. go5%TH^^-^Frt^^ ct^wfiftfp^ m ^^^mmm: ^^ï^s^ mmm- 

31. ^. 'îi. 5!il^*rT^1 - I» i, I. 

32. go3#ri%q?r - ?.-w'*', V'^-'î-'- 


mï^ ^^^m<i I m w^-. ^q^ ^s^^^ ar-^T^I^r ^^% ^^^^^ 

(ô^5fT^ #f&r 7=^*^) 5ï#îî ^0m ^IfeîTciï m (mi T^^è m^ 

1978-1979] ^'rfr5r5=fff%Uflrr^0TTîT?rK: - ^.^ ^gj^ fkfrê: ^»\ 

^P^ Wi^j^^ ^ #îi" "w'T^^^îS^^ "i^ *M«i sïrfq^ f%tm 
«TÎqr^; mï %^:^^m- sriff^^ »tw^«ï ^%^caïï ter ff^ fP^- 

frsFïî: ^îgiMr ^oïï mn^t^ ^t^^: q%: çi^: f^g Prf^g sr=qR srrçR^: 

t^: ^cT ç^rfîT: w ^^^ ^'^ ff^ =^rm s^^^ I RR i ^mm^ 

<T^ ^ifr^ s^sîtr: ^^^f? ^é ^w ^^ - 
^Tô#fe^ ^#^îT^4 ^vrter^ ff% I 

35. Ibid. ; ■" ■ * ■ ■■"■■■■•":■ 

109 — 7 


^ m\^\ si%^ #301 ^ïwà, ^ mmmH^m ^^ mim^m- 
'^^ ^^^^\^^ml^: #11 

36. fiiTSjIgn^f : (SriraDgam Ed. 1911) ¥. 1, '^. %%. 

^I* % k ^qHRî 

^ClÙL. ^.■.. , ^ ...,,,. .' r. ■.:■■ ■, ^-^- . 

^#î^ *Wl ^5TR5l^ fc^Wïïwàl #î^ fef ^ 

^ -fv . <V,*^_.^ 'fS ....f\ 


t. m.ï.\. 


^STSîtïïORî,' '3Tgr^#c3;' fcïrrfêïsî: f^^ïïT^^Ï; '3T7ÇI' fî% R^rrtTT aTÎ^^c3^ 

1^ %sfT ^ 5i% g çT 1^ «si Siffla 11' # 1 

^m «ftïï%^w ^Fr%s5îm g^^: 11' #^ I 
t^cf^q^ ^ïï5ïîiF2ï52îr's2irïîf çf5=5ft||;^Klrii'' cRôT-sîîr^îîPïÇîr =^ îT^/ 

3. 'sm. a. 1. 

4. "m- t. 1. 

5. cî^CcT. I. '^^^. 

6. SRTT. a- v-^?,. 

1978-1979] ïr%^«î^ îftrrt^m^sîqTlîs^q; \*j> 


^f^wMï^ ffrrf^^»î|?r ^r^5iT'^ç^«Tl^ m^m ^^m ^^- 
flirter *ïM# f%wçjF, ^Ti^iR^gG^ïfçi; I g^i w^^l^i-; 

9. ïRïï. S. >f^. 
109 — 8 


^t#: ^ =^5??T^cf^r^î^ 5f5sr5î5fr ^sr^ïïïsr f^tî#ïî 
qRt^w ^q^roTM iftïîtçrRrr^wçiî îî2feîM^: R^îwrPT: fïï^^î^^^^, 

^ ft^^^, ^ %52ï 3iïiï i4 ter wm Ws^ #3j|^ 
^?m wmi te^ 1 î^^f ^ ^1 3ï3Cf5eîîHw^î^5îq^=^3î^ wm 

1978-1979] fï^]?m HWETTOTÇST'nîSî^q; ^% 

îîS^qiwr^ ^«T ^[5R^ Er^é^<^g^?T %^^^ ^^^' fw%s-" sr^é^ f^ 
fpq^ ?f^ ^^^\\ Ito^r]^ ^m-^ %m^^ ^\m^mé 

mm^: mém' # îTiTT^rf^^^ ^mm w^of q^ #^ 

%^q^=!iî ^^^; m m^^mm\^ '^^'4<i.^**i<^s^ ^^mim'^'i.^'^iw- 



îîî^ gîîïîrr fi^ ^ft^Hl^ ïïîî^qïï ÇTîïïi"^^ 1^^ ^f^ôq[4SïJ[%St^^ 

51<k^çN«RÎ ?rî^ïï^TOl#m ^I^M<:4il<^l^^lRcr^'l îm^tT^^R^RiH- 
^51^ gT^s^rawr ïT^^Sf m^^ 2I^^»r SOJ-MTÉ^ f^f3R)5îiT# 

1978-1979] ^%^^ ^t^•mw^^J^^^. ^ 


23. cT^^. 2. ^^. 
J24. rR¥. 2. 1M^. 


çr^^52ïrïi3îr^ ^0[ ^^j9{ ^m^"^^^ i ^m^ ^^^ %^]^m %-^i 

ïTR^t %^'^ 5[5:5iï ^^r^i ^K'- ^^ ^^^^^^m ^^ï^ \ 
1^^3[!^^^^^fm^ ^^^m^m^m, ^^^^m^K^^n^ i '^frôi^- 
sïuïgtîffl^^î; ^^m me^ i ^^ ^ftt ^ïï^B g1%^^^5: <^^^i^v 

«n^=2rR ^3[cftà# ^ï>Tf%: i^t^ ît u' çfç^r, s. ^'^• 


nmj^m ^tmmiwm^^^ 



f .ftij^s. ^«ïï^^^ 5^^ 


4<^?lW-4^tlt^5 ^^V^ 

2Z. fti^jTrafsîïJ:, xi, VI, 


^0 ^ ^<^^âëbo 



t^oë^ ç?ifèd&o^ "S^^j^S^SéS^ Mg. ê^&, t:^&, ë^i. 

1, "The Hindus were a nation oî philosophers" vide: A History of Ancient 
sanskrit Literature, F. Max Miller, Revised Edition (1968), Page 28. 


ts jà'^ 5SgSio& tù àoù, çâoSiB eSîsPog ^î7gê^^ ?6û^^sSb 
tSoà^^ë&oir?^ à^^Jâgfô&eëûà eo(îàg?éDD^ à)oafS53.'63& àiàti^S^, 

((i r. 1210-^1290). ei '^S)(d;^^» ^K^â«^& :^^r? t^^^ào^SêJ^oxià^. 
«&s5ôo^s5S:$;& ^oë'o^às tp^r^^^é» ^îiaar^. (S,^. sS&ÂS'wsS^tra 

S?S)^olb î5^^o(ë'ë' ;i&5-^. 
•^. ^•â^Cbâb ( L¥. 1275^296) &îteTr»Sl^-g^^^t9S5^Ôo^^^^^ îS>:5*;âa 

^âoâ-: ;3oW,j)Xx;5 e3S)o^?)o-S;5 ^j^-cn»aj;lx. 

*;57 8r-cfiT*ï^ss.M ' ^j^^r Qg^. ejô ôr^tsi^K^ c>^:>^7S ^c^'^6:i âc^rhif? 

1978-1979] ^ou$ ^K^&if^ 

w^^èr^ Ibeïêcà^GdSbg (ij.^- I4e8->1553) îTd&oë'^ *^r<^àw^^ 

c3*5'èn>s3ip^g^SD jj ?^. sSÉi^?3"6£)SS^êrâ û^'ôç*Ks5bo?5 &oâ<s3*i!^.6 

8. -tir»': e:)U?^S)^OQA£^, s5(^5$X)o;j)éjiSba (1953). ^^é^m 18d, 184^ 198. 

eS|Ô^SS^Ô^2^oS3^©§:j [^^iSMr»&e> ei>3^®^ asS^o^^; So;5cr>Coeâ:>, iS; Sl^55^ 

li.^, 14-15 ^-sp»2:o£3é^ SS:>St«-cr»Sl^^^SSà3'^ *3€>^oScoaâ?5 sS^sS^SioCoaco 

?5o5àéoîSûo, ;&è>«30 18B, ISe). 

fë^^^o -i^ôt^^îSx), Ô3ÔoC3o:5ba|^iSc3:5aa [1951). Sâ^J d^^).: -^^ùS^r^^o^ 


^^ë>o^ â)oDsSe)âê ^$^><ho^. 1 ecT'g.. 34 ^.■ 

■^ , 'A'" .. n , . ^ 

(Palm leaf); R i68i Paper)* ^^oô'sâtr^c'SSboC)© à ë^t^vodiko^ 

C-SoO^ (^^^•^^^"°^§^^?^^^^ S'ë^-3o-en«^c§ ^x^;5-ïr>^o;5bco -Ù^d ?3o?:)^\t^ 

1978-1979] eo^^ ^f<^ 



|j^ozî7ocsàào^ i^cd^b ?5o«)^ R 227 (Palmleaf). gô "So^ è";!):) ^^F*^^ 

f^oè^^'O'ëo^SD ë'oSâ). i^§^ l?^^^'^à L^<^^^^ eoë'^'C^b 3SP|ë"êû lorh 

A ^ 

"ë'OH ë'^Sfâsiû 31d^^ sàD&sSéS 

^o^O) ^oe^^'^îSD ^o£^d6, 

siSbjpSS ^©;i§"^^. {^S&^oë 6S>^^& ^Q£^o&r?'S'. 

nâo&'â^ ^i^^^o S*^à^(SSi t}^!^ 

ëU"^ ûo^cD77î5 iû^ SûîS ûqS"". 

1 ©55»^., 28J3 & 87 ^i^^î<bce. 


2_^oà»cfibî$ i^osr-SsSio?? ^^^^^àj^ . 7?ûoû^à. -ëi cJfjàsrdîîSûïS* 8î«^& 
(^;)"âîflbê5.^ yî'^^S^sJîâ ts^^^'Sa^à, Ji cSàçr^cXàsSic^ H" «Cgdîè^Êûà 


moi !$ ^XoSo^tJO 


»t?^00& TyoèSî&O 






119 " 












42 : 



1 17 ^é^u^t^^^^ 


^ Q^ es 


34 ^ 



; 105 






siâfr^îSsfcf, '' 


TTôèp^^éi^^ t?&S3»(î^^âîê '2ûDaîa3îi)o& é>à^6É> SàpoSb^So SDSÏîJ'ea 

■■"^'^sSs'^c^ ^m'^^Gi-" ■■.-■,-.-. -..,- ..-.' - 

-tt>^ ^^èoS:> -t^ôoî^" Sâo-C^'ar»v^ooQc:3bo®oCooC3b g'ô'^^^J^K^SûoSSb^ 

• • • 5:S;^ûaâ"^o,'* 

:3ba?5^K3 SP'g'éJ "^ot^o^JoùOSSb ^Q\J<y;Sr*:Sx)rr^ "gê>^ô3oo«r»^Co. "^i?55c'âC) sioeSb 

■tir* : i) «fo^^^lTsâ'o'QAcî» iO sS jdosâ^î^, sâè:)€x> 197-200. 
il) 7:}:6j]jK'^oij$ '^îr^ëgo, 8 ss Xo^6;5bo, ^h 275* 

1978-1979] ^oij} ^K^èi^o, 9 

a • ■ .a y Q 

^oiî^o Sbcrs5^5^ss;S»?r **à^;5'â3 ^^^ iSSr^gS'* qb'Iô (I e^so^g.. 


■■••'■■.109— 2' ■' 


^oïi £JoS)î6&>£5'èo <Sd^;JS14 

1o;à^ CPfôgab sS)^&îS> 
a&53*tf^S^ î:5si)§cpô^, 3:S;j^Sè ^^^^ feAsisiû n^Sotàéo, 

•d&eiS5b^d3b*îSS) Ô'(^â»t)3eJ CJaSoDÔîS e^&^Sr^ (l)^>^^â> ;Sa)jp 


**Aii à^dà't>îSoSi)iSgSàodSbc5& îT^Sia 

^^5" z sSdÔ 5*tJo*3 ? îûo^ (5S*od <â)Sl) ? 

14. esiâ ^aJèjùSS"^' e9;3bi3r»,0 "an» oSS^î^ô s'écrasa îiu. '©éooSSB, QéjûS5'B' :5bo?5^«b ^èS 
■^«Xirtû S)^îî;Sx)©6^^ éo^n»e^;Sx);3b Si-^e^;Sa^nr* 'âxr-^ooCSo^SleoC^Kj f ^co "S^tSb^é^ 

1978-1979] eo|«î^?faâ^co II 


^saD<& Sîi^cyefo 'ëOdS^S, B'^ d&iS5$X)^c53b ;3^^o^è63 ^^^éûorr ^t>4o^££> 

a^Sî^sS^S^J^^îâ J5SP'^s^:5s5:o& âr^é€oSSfîoS73 âJ/fsâoaSo âaoSca.'* 
^s5î^?Ss3bo^© è'Sss'ë'g^ioo^e?^ Aa=jr*a"a}:5 e>&&?)Sog'5-, ô;S'âsidïïb^î> 


f3»/r;D^ c7&>^^^5 SS>S3bÔ^ 

Ail <$^£^gSSpôo£i)tâo& ^)i6p^ ô asà& 
"§!)a5 dfi>Soo«x> iSà'^ë^g sio&ité 

ii^ -^ i^SoÔsSe^gSiû ;So^orfî5 «z7^d3bSSs:>;â s'S) ê'cS o»8à(3prr»& 

I978-I979] eo^^ ^/fs5âiroo 13 

*eï^^jp, eï^^gSÎD* - -ëi "Soda tiàboî^£i>, ^o&io^ éêJ*6^oë^r? ??ô'ddb^Û 

8. eCû&& (Ij^^^iS rsd&»& ^o^^S^^o^ iië^Tv, ^ô'^r^'^S' 

(11 e^ç?g.. 15 r^.) "^^g'5?;j^i^c^sî^:^^êro*' (il ec^g., le ^) €5&?^^ 

qS)c6o3 î5 d^Si^j^2)^^^S^*^*^^ ®^^^ ©îSoë'o 2DOoë|0 £353*i5|0 2SS^<î$gO 

&^î6go8»....\..,e..,.,..*.....,.;.».............,....;. ........ ^ 


O — D *^^ 


;$s}o'â èr^^SSfSsb eoôoû ç?s5^îS> &?ïsisàû rfSotÊôD. 

.• ^ ■■ • •«— ■ , ■ m' 

SStÊ^eèîS^, ^oa Sïeîco e»0; 

1978-1979] eoL^^K^â^co 15 

^^^o^oSsy^ ^^^dûidÊD 

S) S)S3idào8»o "^ S'osa oB «5 

iîi) ^^^^ ^crgd£5S)DÇ30tf£> ^^<3ii^v^, ë&^ê^:;;s^^d&^oe^ 
e) "S'il S5bîà)^«s3 «^o-gdàos»;^ 


..iô Ho ^si|ï&& ^^^^^ ^^^^ i^ùir&oi^&^:,a>. 

■asuSÔX'. aio£$b^^ ïu^Ô -30 An-SJ-J^saco : 

*2 2' - -00-2^^^ (I-Ï2) ; w^dfe» = ^sS^fi-^SioocSâoifS iS;$&£fe (III-16); 
:^pt » S&^fi'' SScSfeiàîâ (in-3l); esô^^o = âS)§5P:èa) (III-40) j 
Ltrl^t = ^îSotr sî3^43 ey-4î;3b^ îSo^^âb (IV-21); -^838 = «oéiO'Dâ_^ 
(VII- 9); a^a» =^ ?îbÔ/rîS5 ij5g (VII-IO); S^S^ «^<=^ =• (©Sî-^û'oiJ^ 
ÛoÛ» «,ôâ;i''(Vin-12); ^^g = 1Ô<3à C£pi&2cû (XI-6). 

«So**êê^ ^ùo^â^ l^é^ë^îi^ ooacXÈoô ^(b'^cofûsS^S'oSb oô^'^âborv^ 
mh. m^^^ëé^^ t»g^tfsS5ix5"3sS •2œ.?î>£SÊPSà^ ^Aî5ô. ^ c3â^ ;5D^"âS^ 

1978-19793 eo|^Cf «fXçSâ^oû 17 

V. , «* <i. -c*. 

o^ ^oe^ff*^ûë's3brr. tS'S'j-r^ sa^âoô ^S'^ndC^ôd cSàSîS c3*ô'd:^ë'S)§ ?5ée3a"Sb 

i^^^^n îào^^ss&£à aôiij'é'Sj» 

15. vSj-: 4^cbAw»î>d';3ûa^ R* 1681 (Paper), ^h 5. S-V.U;0,R. Instî# 
tute Library, Tirupati. 

109 — 3 


^#|è^âab© f!*^^ <âoîS) sSr^ ? 
Sâ'^"a& 1^^*^:^ ^ëëozsi :SpSS 
fclaDjâ^S oâ* 'e7*âii«ia) à»l)^g;Sx>©S> a&^sréîSf* sSir*^ t^^ëtàx> ^dà; 

«--» m n» oc, 

:}âfG£oî:â£:b^^s* *;S;î*fâ>oSêSg^'' ^s^^&^e^'ca^ioîSSo -ëi |5oô iocsisù^ 

A au- 

m&i^^m ^^f^^o ^^^S^^^oë'^^^s'^ ^.^s^ tf^^D ^^^ 

It. ^: ATrieiieîaiCatalogiicofMaBuscript^Part3^Telugu(1913^^ 

%i5 24^ 

SSbcSëb Soôîâ 6^^A^îi>"Sî5&. ^5 ?3o^s5ûaî5o S"^^f?% ÏS), C3*S2D %<S6 
o,âeas5bD |àn! 5oCS>&. ^2:)ê5*l^D§ ;Sr*^^S)3^ (background) n» „^o§^S> 

aSro^oÔ. ?5e?^r*ô^oo, e^^sSj^CûGo _- SîB^gôSiPîîsàûco» &â|^SiDo<Siog 
«5 ;i;iboS c3iûo& 57^gSSûooar* Ca^S^tà^S^ :St5î6s3cocol7 •Scoefaro ^•|;4îS0^e^ 


{aîîaptyxîs} ^îp^abœ, « Silf ^îi, î!dà^îà ~- s5oéî liàB-oô'&'^^Sbiao -^%^» 
çr:5ô* r*ro«», ^_^5Câbâ ïtf^esgirg" ^§d3j»^;S<Sr»i<;Sja ^î^(i ss'JitSào^S'® 

sjJf. goiïe Sî'^OjJidSô^Sa ûésÛîS'ôÔTV» 3^5^SîoS5^;î «o»"S»S'é5 ^odSb. 
|Soa «îs^ô'dà^Êoœ îrO;j% ^_^î4:§3î5 ^CÔS'â 3- S çg- ^Sâ^otfSÔ «<S^ 

iï£^J:&-^£a l^^^a^-^ SâiS .•is'' 

•.^ ^=f-=^*sss •«a.ossoas ,=â.4a«s.« «&à.s4=-oê, ^^ , 

l». *.: mt&«^à.£fa«. R1681 (Paper), ^fa 6. 

1978-1979] eo^ ^Xs5|^€x> 21 

— - 1 ^o»g.» 26 îS. 

3oÔ^ sp^,^s5i^2§)o ^^^^S^îSp^à&r?» ôg'2p.îS^SiS)îi>oô es5eS'ôoûc6 S^ôsJ'Cf 


® A Q es 

CPesîâû'î^ Cfûo^JS Six)Si),j& SàoS, '«j'ë^^gST**:?, JS ë'g^<5'oîib efûo^»^ (Sj'TT' 
l^;3s^b^SioîS «^CTgl^^s's*^ I^€r5's^c5^ S*So^î6i)S5 ^î6c6gà^;Srî6g*S:x sSe^!)î6ô. 

càî&sïs5cà^îà. -^S^^îT, uoi^^ù6^ ^^ëào^^ îytfà^sSr^gDîîod ^s^S^^j,^ 

3. Dattatrcya -The Wty and Goal (1957), H.H. Sri Jayachmarajcndra 

4. 5?2^êdS îSo^^a§^r (;icpê). Vol. IV (1867). 5Soân*tf*& : ;îoit ;àîî^ 
(18T8). ;fSôà^ô^ ; «3S«d'g i.cXàJS'. oô- 

-t±P' : i»;5a«^r*rj5a:>. ,|j5^;S;>-sr=oi^;Sûa. Î4S ff^S^ba. "epS*'^ SSbo^^^c» (-0:^8). 


^h^è, ^^^^ S^g^ ^^^ssw ^^^Oî^o 

yoâ cpS§ 'ao6»?6co'?i&fco Jf^^&o. ^eî?ètoîy. îS!"î$5Sotoî3», îfîSq^toS' 
I^CcSàSûB ^oÛaîS, e^âoû^" d&^!5S ^îi^S^^^ «KW>î6s5;ji5i f*î)&^^Û. 


^ô)(jrd6o 6è^tii^oo77 ^dàtoo j^;$î!)a^"acS SSicSà'fû. cpsSrdàgôo SàSr«5';S§a 

ipsào^ ^à•^85*ooS^ /fcrsîôff^ è*^^oth hwo&i& ^i^ëor? éÔA^îû^ 
S^ûf" - (Iê-4) e-^ créa. -^^Spéa ï:)ô. €:?'2o»* a»S$M& ç^^i ë'^ 32)^ 

^tf;jS34> O^S^^ ^iPOÛOÔ^^^^^ Z3*<Û^ 3fi»^ Sï>î3^Ô is*à^(S) .. — . 

efi^& &^«û& — e'So (îà&^$> e'So sî)SS*^eJô — ti^& sSci^S) ^&;iû 

•«• ••• •<« •«• 

ii) |^Sû^;ST^o3bc8 §'®^a^^^;Sw, ©(^oo-s^eriSûo. s5o-2^s5é3^oe^;5ûc. 

1978-1979] -sp^h^êi D^g^*? ^^f^ ^ifr-ô^c^^n s5^;^o^o 25 

sa oC 

e^oe^s^^" ^£^ô;5ig&'* (17-7). *'^§^ c^ocè^t^^ë^ S);î^ôotf ^o^'V e^^. âD^ 
^5g^ s^sâe^o ào^ô. ^ ^^^sr^g 5>ë" ^^^, ^î6a. ë'crr. ?:i^âr^<5ô, ^^^. 

eo3DSèoeféDO a.^ S)"l^o, ^^^m^ o*Sio?D3* Her*» «5^^Ô _ 


a^o D^à* ;S>î6èo 5'cjT'o Di^^^êS) H*' 


m^£B2^od, le ^ô-. 22. 18 r*, 

•S)ô!r»;^'- (^^25*^0 u*^& ^Ô'^jssspSd «seSoO -^ s5r*"t» e^î^-^i^). *SDë'^ë'\ sjô 

S. rv^f^efo^foé^^ - "^ Tr»S3ûs Z^CS ifcp»oî5T* &^^SSt ;3:^ S>^ccô-* 



18 rjCS*. S €*"^# 

^Ôo^^rr* caÈL^Kwaib «MTSâao "SsosSliS "Sv^^fO ;gr'Sr*o^5:5xl>^. ^^ 0;loCir*% ^^313^^ 

4. itef«»g-s-o<:?. 17 ?:3ô|, 10. li; 12 Ç^. 
■-..■■lOf — 4 ... 


oâ^^eaj» «rjJ^eaip& 'arej'l^' (17-5.10), '^O'S^èJ'' (17_6.12). 'ï5tf 
^ôa' (17-12) _ wa SoS*$âr-îi). ^eSoB* w^-IpC^o. 

**ë'^a^q«îTo èb îs-êesT-o &<îà8^ tàà^ë^^* (17-2) eîS^ cpSi)S7^§oô^ e 

••8?&§_^£ s3b>^?^?*g3«4o «î>€P5r î5(^^^-|âss''* (17-17)^0. îD^S^r'c^^ 
e;»oé3 S'î6 è'o'S î55 i ëu^^é o^^dA •*q;5j*o Sîû'à^o ^î5èo easS> ê5*o :is5«^ 
iîêS)" (17 20) «9^A&. 'w^ SB'i^Cô'SeS, »Sô, r^-âro^^ îàao-O^Ô. 

îS^ïS^&'d'D^ 5SôoÛo£JSQ_:3cPês. -îfi"2o 'a^j r'es^er-oâ ^oâb^sjû' «s:d;(.^J& 

"^i^^^S^ ^rs-i^hr- (17_1) : oè^êsûâb _ '^gB'^...âia êj^^b^> (l"^-8> 
c»ïio& îS^^S^ ts^TT-, tr>SiD^S îSû^ ^AïSto Sà"\er&j. "doit S^&r- &î^"â) 
«cœj?. srg'g^ ^Cû^^^ 0'^S)^o"is o5j£»& "îjdSrf SSç^to "èùh. ^^Q 

eaDi^ 'sr^gr^Da^&Z'^ ;i^!D sSp^a* tî^^r"* ^^^ àotoDo^ S3»<&i S7ë'g 
S. «>c5:€3g-s^o<^, 17-1 Y. 

T. .àr* : "à Ô, 17-8. 

1978-1979] -a-è^S. S^5"^¥ ^^f^ «ô-tf^ra^r» à^-^oëo 27 

^^^oa. a;àS';^& ««"erS^ ë'ej- ïSïS^cSàoSr* sSbÔo^), fts^ïoèco-S^ 

si^^zST^^^ (TherBe). 

tsS^sSrèD ocûô : ••;S5^à-D£^â^" (17^13). ^0% ^dZj^^o -ëDd^^cS^J 
ts^-d p ^S)D\t i ^^à^àz ë^o-sSà** (17-19). «e5î3*^§^î5 \^o§^ ^^oJ^à 

^S-^ye^ T3-;S>€)<Sx^c^cx) --^©S) ^^SC>ySS sr«^^S5b ^?^ ««(So^é^o â^Oc». >Cr-Cf;^c»^ 

7S6 , 7-^9 r*.\ ^!^"â>iS3o^ xr»;5bo^ *sSd^^ SSÔSS^^;Sûar»_Ô (^©^sS^^o - 
eîcso - ao^S5d -- 190 S5.) «>» «^£^;^ca^. TT^SSc^îSS^ Z}àZ5^76o -^Bci^CS^ 


^à-ë-^^^câô. sio^ài sj^^go ^^6^ ^^££>§^s:) à^Sô'5-ô^oô. ^èon*5 
^î^S^^oû> *^^2» î3»<5S>§S&S> à^ë'Sbûâ ;Ssij-c$"2ôîS esîl^sS'âD ^€3o«ïë=>oô' " 

VS)S5o3' ç^^ ijc^^ -30^:^0*0) -, (i) ë^^o-3^ (ii) §D^o;;î ^ïS3§^3& - 
aî6ô ^<5&2$ «îï^^S ë'î6îà e*îS) 7T*ù'ôo;S^S3§^î6^5S"î:) «pë\ô'§o. 

..,<St* : ., ^a»;, W?>.sS,55 Ç5*e^a*^ ^^^ê* 




■ia.:''.--;;i2£r*"î: ';■ ■"^■:à. 

1978-1979] •5^*2)^5» Si^^-csT*^ s-sg)^ î^cï'^wfr* sS^^o^o 29 

n Q-» CD ^ a— — *-«x>«^ 

•3oei'S5 6^oe^ T^corb ;SD»gc»; €):5î5' :S€îî5o - **eS:) OÔ&oôèPto 2Poô.** 
^«aÛ;E3»gî6o . «ï^sSsSïCP SoZ:i^ ^^^^ Scpcr D^ii^e», s&^KTgcx). ihtSS^o'àCS 

"3oef;5ô ''t'§ô ;So3 6£osè fco îS^^^^o^^*' (84 ::S;) ^^ ^^go- ««^ 

ï«. '^Sj^ î -^ 5, 98-.108 25. 


rcJpepcû. "p?>iâr^S)à^^|)è^5^" (96 ^.), "^^(IjWs-oês?^" (100 :5.), 
""-^ùc^^o'^ëiâd^lTitrd*' (101 ;o.). ^ ^ô;5 ^^co cpi;J)d>sS 

S'oê ê2>&^^ ©oS^CffîSg ÛûCS'î3*^d'o €J»oâ ;Sâ?Soo ^os?&'-S5eP a*5àD^ 

fusa ^^iiéozsi ^dc if&B i sy/ï* 
o o 

àmrbr^'SiS "âo ? aoi^ îSs^fôè^ g'oâ ?" - 108 ;$. 

<^^i5oao SosJ^-cnÇ^^âao-u) -ôeir^r*^ ;5-ûjî5 ^^^30 -^e^ô, Romanticîsm X 
Classicîsm. £)è3&ciS^ d^f^^ôoo© Û&Cf^CûSj'e^ xlr»^n^S *^»x3 tt*®*' 6^ 

1978-1979] '^^^^' ^^^-^^ ^^f^ '^d^csKT" î5^-^o«o 31 

;So;Sicoî3-^ s*ô5«rab u'^-a-n' ô^^ifc' " - aj^ w|o. s^S. ^oS*KÔÔ* 

«a «a s'^to ç!»^&*oa. lo^^ ^o-h "â^s'tfîS «ssô'ir «go. ^cr^jes» 
••îioâ^jrs^pS" (16-6) wcSn-. 0^^^^ "^J^L^^îTs-oô" (100 ;S.) «sîS;^^ 

95 ;S. 

^£^^63» o»Si»S ?^Ô^ 3»^, eci&îS o»î5s'&JàK) ;^&i>:à:53 ô^^êfoéM» 
B»^-S5» js'^l) ifi^a'^-3 ô^^^^^a. -^;îiîgi?iî^ woeS^îSe^a S^_;^îS^2r|,^' 
S'a, '25^à)' eïS^L ^°° "^o^^. {^eî^S^a ^^ors'ërs'^^ jîoi> &^_^a. -Si »■» 
iïSSp^o ^S ^{Éi_;^Sb îîoooaoûo^, îjg'O'SS»© is'o^s^go «oCÎ^oa ë'^^ 

17, ro_;yS\a£&J _ esiîcso, So-Cîs5è5. 98 a. 

18. ^a^Ûcso otfcsg-ff'oci 18 S Stf«r* 6. 7 r^^o sS>qîg «.çr^êfom 8i:5^ 


4^ «t|8oô r*g'o«^ àoa:- 



?:^oS5âc5T-sàoô* ^er' ;5r-o^^S3C^ î5;S:>'5soCÔ3 ;S^^^t^'t ^tfgo. -a^;S>i 
•â;3;5^3* ^Cr'Cf^^Wïip ^"^^SS «*oiriÔ» ^ TJ^oÛ^gSJ) ;S^t);S>3'=ê>^dbÛ7»<xo^o. 
;S>7»©oé^ "^^^^ ::S3S^Ô §>-cs^ iRen»oé5 rScr*** î3Lr»^o%r»^. Tr-:ix>& «Cj^C^^ 


û^o. ^^^cèi» s*ft)oî:) -^Dâ ^o*o;S5' ^tJâssr* «P(v?S>l §^Ô^^oûoc5 5)ê* 

"SSoDîi) SS^ë'oÔ 55bûé;)C85Ô gTKo» âr*ci»:5 ^^^^o 36£oo 

— 105 ;S. 

s$x3*^cô. Qô ^^ "Sûo ô'o&û^^ ^eftîeia dûéDooô ë' €fè^;)oeïff*^Û^orï*. An* 
^5's5*S5 sââ^d crsibs* ••&;Sx>®S*' (16-8) ^^^ik. zi^^d ^^^ît^ 
^^^c^^ u^^^ ''&o66 tà»^'§^ èpo&àë S^g^^^** (in ;S.) ai0»gôn» 
Sfc^oô. sàsî-ô *;e:J4c3S*; (10-9) oo"è g'o^îS^^âo^ ^2^^c9» ''ei^o^ 
sâ)4ù5'oKû7^ ^&^â d*^SX)** (194 :î.) eotooô. *\Î3a &•;$&•*( ^^>c5jb 
2û*;SS)-à^0»o .) (I e-.9) eS) sàâ^ô 3;S^a». ^î^'^jcb^j :$l)^cpSïtf oSf*"fc S^^îS 
F^gù ;Sd«§co (83-.103 ^.) crD5 rSoDoÔoûîâlâ. SiSi-ô 'V^dÊSS^^Sb'* 
(ie«IO) eD aD"S ^§2r^ œsiaâb - 

ir;5^^ î^aSî îSaAaâ :|s?^;$ &0ÔOÛ. 

û"*.;io '«.g"*:!» 7r^j5 ^;l>;S^* ti:S^ S^g^r^sj^ô n;Sû^M ;fo$o (^8 :5)è^) ^ 

1978-1979] 53»|)^g, SD^^-sT^^ g'^é^ ^^^^cè^T' ^y^-^o^o 33 

es —a CD ^ 

^i'd? r U'SiûDl ^^e^gs^otlî S'Qj^oî:) ëo'^tp é^^'^ à^ôo£à§^25<^o, Sîô 
'■Sp:^^>:3S) ^Q6s:ùd>è ù^^o. sSrîSSà^ "SOD^èDOîà jjS^oS)^ e^'â ^otooô — 

SDtf^^§S*o«â ;Sc3*^SièâDo £r*^o<Sc90. Sss^crsioOcS) ^S^SijâSoDr? ^SotàéD<S^^ 

ISoi^ ; (P^Q i^î5oKo ^<^é3 âr'ôîv si^j-"â ^e5'^6al?sSb^on»'â ÛcSiïo 
£ù\ i;5î3oAK)P **^às5ô 83»â^oo £do»§ :;3êê CPfô^l o sSr»;Soa)5'** ^^ 

^:5'^S9«) 1^:5 STOt^îi» K)cî3bto"2>éSî5 ë'&^ë' CPSioS) î^sè^eâj» ^ï3»^& ^ 
•'beà âSrfôSSap^ xSr^d^ô^oii ^o&'h^r*' rl38 sS.) «D. ^â^SoiS^y^oë^t^ 

21. g'©^a[^<Hi;Sx>. ei>c^€;^o. sSo^aSéS. UT-.128 ;3. 

22. -CScr» : ^^Ô, 184 s5. 

24. xS>: ^Ô. §7 S3. 


raSoD 0;Soê» î3«oD dàéûi) èl'c^Sû 

s^éODe? ÔJ-^oeDD§^d' d^Së'jpÔoS*' ^ 140 ;î 

^ :Sbj^ô ;Se5'î5 - "<&&^|ï, 2à^e5Ô, DCSpà'âi, îî»»sàSjûP6^fô, ^&r^;6. 

(141 sS,) ^D %»o|^^sSo;j€^D ^ô^rSD, s»è^5 S)"1é^co îSsî-fô 5>à^îO^ SD"i 

êS^^t^o. èr^^^'Sù:^ S}î;$d&êû. S^^a, '^<6Sû ?<0^^ D^^^êpoo^6'e^s3bco' 

B*l))o<^î5^sSpèD. -ë^ S)sldâo *'fts;6çD eST»;Soeïï c^oD c5àé» è'<Ssb rsa^^ S)^^^ 
oo^5'e»o«:û ^^;^*' ç^'i^l:^ 53*^§o^ î^ûo;Sfô&tè*^oô. -^ S)<Son» 

s?ê^S (^â*S5j5 sSàâ:;^ éo^5i^S)ScpcF - [TÎSPoS'eSô. «o"è ey?D-5^Sa'(S 

fvD^ot^&' é^^sSpto -^ ^5? lipS'û^^ sS^^g'^îS ^5';^89^ IPo^S'tfg sSô'îâ^^ 

". ^^î?5 ^S5-2e e^C^^câ S^^Kï'S^ dÈ&;S^oSj-^a iD^ts» iîézûo S^^s^ t'* 

(88 ïS.) eî6^;ST*to& §^ao&î5;)^ô. sSrîâ^D s-^o|â)CSin»a) ;îô^è? ^5 S'a?:). 
iS^lo S^oë lââ^ Lbbjj^^/^oe^. <3"è ^7h^ ^i£ cTS ^S S e.ôAîS 5pà^% 


S'e^iS^^Sûo. »tfc»g, SSo-C^SSèS, 181 S3, 

— 184 ;S. 

S)2i> ir^^S^ ^ot^c i^S)^^5 

?C;i)£^î5^ô: iS^S^odi^c ^^o'é à^^t)o i '* . ■ —^ 185 sS- 

S^Kr4i)a>" (196 ;S.) ao&DOô. ^eodii'i à sJo &)i»o 'êc^. sà^5 sS5sj«?5 
(188 ;S.) ^cOîS t5)c$^si^éoîi> (^^ar»oû, &)ôdàS^ ^5''^e3i«> ^iû^^r ^^ «» ^ 


..g'o^,S2^^;5oo. .e^cTesg, sSo-CiTsSéJ, ,186 Sj. 

29. -iSj^i: -^ a, 197 S5. 


r,^-»:?r.s 2>^&- ^^c^sS^^^ "âs^ S*;So ^o^^o KÔ'co 3Sèe:>S* S^D S3»^^ 

oi^£»& crr. ;S»^2r 32|ë^ s^oôovS'e^o - -^ "SoôéSâ e>2àScS ^oCS^^^ é'a^^*^ 

«s KT.CDlts Sûf^ ;S\B»i^ i:)ao$o^' ©croso.^^. a,^é5 -^ 'o'*^ Sto&>\ "Soilb — 

^^1- « «Scco. KES.CO. ;3ôl©J "SaiSêS sSj-to^ ^oSTa' ^toSb J3b5%, 
c^Lo«.%- a--2D E5ôo^ ^^^ ajâ2_^.. ,203 :S.-)"«a. ge^ ^ni^o «s^ 

ao. îfejj»^&a»_»ec9g. ao^sîd. 184 a. "" ~ '~~ ~ ^ 

SI. ■ûj»: ;^ô. 199-20S a. 

"^-. ;ê>*>«u 28-80. '<^s^iîô». Moeî^^S-, laVô. 

1978-1979] "s^è^s. Sii'^7s-(f ^^&^ ^j^6^<r.ip js^^oèjo 3? 

" «A S3 63 *- 

|)oCi&. as'(?^^'s°6 St-o' 550*7? ^rSâ S'a èVoë'oS^ :Sbr ij'wbo^ 
g*ûÔ EûD^îSiJîSa) i^^ês' iî^à'g. ro i^>)໧ ^(SSûJ^o as'^rs'^ â^Spè'goa^ 


e> es 

S(3p7?!D§ i^é'Z^ O'JSes y^^^o -ë'cr^ê «poiTS^ 8â6?ï ^âb^^j^^^ ««6s' 
eâc [à'f^olJ'SîOâ. Ddàto S^^jo ^o^b wêsâ. S^^O î3*it)§ ©ô ^è^. 

Sit i;$ê5'5'o. 


asr^rT^ ^^td^ à'sSrtS^ s^^J^ ftscéw àâ^eîD, «dà^r^ d«^^"3j^ 

o CD ^ L eo 

â3. cXèS. gScî&ér S3€r ess^^à. "Tradition involves in Ihefirst place, Se 
historical sensé, which we may call nearly indispensable to anyone who 
would continue to be a poei beyond his twenty-fifth year and tbe histori- 
cal sensé involves a perception not only of the pastness of the past but 
alsoits présence." 1 

^ëf à^sSp'â^ ^^è"^^ e'^^cD «a'^^î^s^ar? S:à«è(3*^6, d»oM 

1. T.S.Eliot^, Tradition and the Individiial Talent, in: Selected Writings of 
T.S* Eliot Ed, Frank Kermode, London, 1967, p. 30* 


^•5^"^^^ Social Consciousness ^^ ^^^77. ê. d:à5. sjOcSà^ ^à^^ 
^^è^ (Historical Sensé) e^r?, i5'jesp5'^03D<§" el5 S)s5bï^Sbj& î5â 
s^epoè'^ë" SS^N^SP (Contemporary inner tims -sensé) «^^^&. -^ sSp^Doà 
îâd'îS^^ îSsiS^dào ^ep ^îl^àèèo^otî ^^^ ^^^âi^ iSà]^^ ^è^^ 

^^>j^ t^^^ 3*ô|^^^ î5sîoa) pdàà. S)^^K?<^ |j?î)î6 sècpss "3 Ô* jKo^ 

&^€}, :^>r, 5*I^C^ Î6^003Î7^CCÛ. ^D CPÔjj^^ (S^OGD. \ipb^ S'OOKTéS 
ô CL». «r« 

âPP&^ Aa t)^h^^yji^& ^^t:}^ Ù^^ét 6\t:^S^ x^wi)l ^t 1^^^^ 

à^r^è^^ SJsà^^SoDej* î5s5pq»îS Soîs^^cà. ^in reading the Works oî m 
author who lived in a remote âge, il is necessary that we shoBld look 
back upon the customs aad manners which prevailed m his âge that we 
should place ourselves in his situation and circumstances."^ 

e ^^^^'^ ^fpcyO. Q^jj^er 8.Ï siû»^ S)sldào i-^à^oa^D, îT'ôij^^â' ?S«5^gS)^ 
!S\îxë^ îSptpQ' ^7S\ si€d&ir S7H=oîD5 eÔ^Soep ^i^^&od^ ? ç5o"è ô'CJoaë' 
tS^^^&tà IS^D^^oô. â^^ eç»c^o77 él^r'lS 5"vfcûo^ à^sSrâ^ ^ci)^^*^ 

2èoéJ*cico.3 S*aa. ù*^é^ ^S^j^Sp ç^ol) IsSeo tJ^?D^ îoSSpgâ î5^^^^^ 
û^(^^"lû û^oiîJtoo S'eSi. ^à^èîS s'epo feoS ^î^îâ^ sSj<»:62ào ^5r*çrS5 

e5 |6%Soû Sé^eei^âTcxxïK? -^ S'ej'DS 7Sb7? «S^d^Si^ëp ^oéoaoô. 

2. Helen Gardûer, Observations on the Faerie Queene of Spenser, 1754, p. 25. 

1978-1979] ù^sSt^^^ ^^^^'^ ^^^-^(f. ch^^^^^o 41 

''And it is at the same time what makes a writer most acutely 
coascious of his place în time of hîs own contemporaneity. The Past 
should be altered by the. présent as much as the présent is directed by 
the past. And the poet who is aware of this, will be aware of great 
dîfficalties and responsibilitîes:" * ^^ 6iSox>ë i^Bi^^oë^^i^z^tê rh^^ 
^o't) ^ë& ^o^^h'â ^xSaxi^S* ë^^:D^7r- ^^^o <^to:5oèS«S^ ft> Ô oOîS sy^B 

€^D e^ocS'Ôëbo^^to î6Si>S'è:â ^^o6^ ë^^Ko ^o^âss à^îï?^;;^ ?û à où, 
ir^ë^s^ùè' ë^^^^^ëoS^ ëë'6a^ S^^iP'fSoù^ S^^î^^ ë^'^ Ko oC^Sè g3*C>g^S^ 

;SoiSScs»<5feo &OÔ s'a ;Sg S b»cD^ ?5oà^ao& i^oéj^<Sb. ëëëcpo:>lT 

S:iî3»gà^ccr»> '^t:iZ^^v^ ërhoS^n ïï^ ëT'ë^ SSt*cp€3c» S'S^oS^ sj'D^ S)C£p&^ 
ëT^S*0 ù^^ûë î^^àS^î2:> S5gâ^é'5oûc6&i^^oô. :So|^^^d&o KH*Dâ Ùà^^a 

ë^ë^Sgoê* ^er» ^Ôes^î33oS* e3»^^ çî»S)JSj* ^ëcScù ;5dàefo SïoJâ. âîDS 

4. ibid. p,26. 
109 — 6 


a^r^^o :ij»e:r»?5 JiàxSso^ elSr^î^g^'S aiPôS^o) So^S &a?> (55r» SÔdàD^do «:g>'^ 

"û^S^ eàî5iS:os?3c).5^ ^ alsSoJ* eA^d^4rï* S)sy'Sr»<^<3aï âoB^^^ëâb 2b<^s5 
Se:::r^ DiîSîVSîS ir0*|C&D ?5oj^;5c?dà ^éû^oeoS* '§^"§02^05 ^;6^§^^ 

n*:*£-»Xb3 irê^^on*, ^^^^0?^ ë.oh ô\^oû s£c(d&oô. s5orX)5. ^ADo 
ctf^o ■î)We^o sàj»o-S. wodàfi^ ;&«gorv ûj?§î^oâ53 1^ X«"^«2ï^^«> 

5. -&;& r^^SÔD" «s ^j&.^»-) So^9oa^ «f^^t^;S &»i>oR5b .^S^rv e.go 


«« ^5fa ^,^ero6- ^o., ^,^g,^ ^^^, ^^^^^ ^^^é- êo»efo 

1978-1979] è-^--êè' ^^i^^ - àv^-ir-^ ^^^^'^^^ '^^ 

«rô^èdè cS-Kôè'ë' <aD5'j-. i55o5l?6^5j^^od. 2) ^ "Boel'sSô SiicSsb sSo^gJoSô. 

sië'>j^eg' ^si&^^ë'^ S2û'^ 55^43^ ^&oa5o, ^odâbSi:5o, rtocô^^-d'o, SàS^çrô'go, 

**n'cS'2ôc6 l<i>;5b x^ù^^ S^và i^es^o:) j^^'^ SoKë^ ë^éi zs'oOoxS^, 
Sàîà^ 3â54Sg?^^ fcasr*. Bs5âS5^ s<pSî$ ^^Ofôo (Socialism + God + 

ôd';:5co' e~S "âtTO^ rjQâoGO 6£>€XJ^Ô ?5èi'o *r"«TJ-«oCi)C3 TT^SJ^ "^€X>Kié^^^ 

«£>Ô oooS3^é3§ Î948, 1967, 1978 ©é^ 5S>jr».:êb ^Sx^j^e^'rasxi éPoÔoa* ^S^xâccû 


ti^ëoér, K? Sâbco CPtïJooaScr» lâ^aSi^Sgo o}Spà^5b. syif S7lf ^sro?à Ijî6 
e^çîDa^ l:iCiw^ ç^^^OD Bsy^K ::S^^ro"tî c7 J)^OD iTÔbèr^^ :6S&^ 

sir;$S)êr^cO^ âr^/Tàor'D ^g$c^^^âû, â% a^^ô?(S *Jâ^ "êi^îS' ^c?^^, 

â^5 ^^âë Yù\^'tr Sâipeo. 

;5cps*î^^& ^st'Sjoûoô ^.^c\^^lo, "S^sÎ3'^"2Dro (l)œSi>î:îo|^iS)& ?rS> 

:23û^g' fe e.ë' :(à£5è' ^J^ :S^ ^SD^^oÔ. . .^g* c'^ST&à^g:) ëD5 (âèë ftnol) 

«5<&^ë' sSt»cS^S§. ■ ■' io^^'^^oê^.'à^iëo ^^,y ^^h^ :ip<xùt)» ^^&o^ 

l^8<;)ô-'rj^.; aàotî; .8:>ôo5;^' .©O'S* '^ii^^ë Bùm''.à''w*^ée 'i^ . ©os* 

■■15. :,§',ç5^5^,^;Sd>'- ^■m:5:Cèg^o^ -'^^S^çoe^'j ■--■■ -871 ;3', 

16tJbid;''40i''';S,:' :■'■';■■: 

1978-1979] • rù-^j-éÊT -1^^^- ^5)^^^ ^^^^^o 47 

hët^a^ oo^i^^o^^ ^éoeôo ^èr^DiT'Cres ^ë" ^?ââp^*SD S'^èf sSë'S^ "SOT? 

*'i$6g ^^^^Sj^ào i^ "H-sSi'^'f^g» ^odàû_^o ^cp^Cf 

oSao^^oTY- ç?sS^^s3ar*83gQ<§^ e)ê"is3*ï6 "âsîè'co. ç;5cr'oèS ^^^ ^èd'tù sio^gorï* 

^ ■ 19. . îbid, .-; -^^-w-oa^ ,-,, »tf - :S. ^: 8. , ■ ■ , , 


^è^off* êîéa^cdûDïè C^^^S ^oô.&* **¥*5:5'3'' lP#go3 ;SSb î^ S3î3^ ■■sS^s5j^5" fêP^ 
. .,.3*S5bo e*ir "^^^^ jj5a?'â*0: €r*:0!è3a, CT'D^^ô^ ê'tos»to^ ai^^ sSgSiîââ 

23- îbîd, 167 ;3. 

24* ibid, «*éj-«cC53i^oe^Oj Î81 «3. 

1978-1979] ?à-»sST*âs' ^;^^^ - s^^tt-^ <^^s'^^û 49 

e SSr^2^^è ^o^ô-^^S ^s^o ^o^a. ^"âîSdiPg ^^;io"è t?îSD^orâà 
C3'o;Sè''gSà èr^c^CDoû î5s$pîy'5'o sSp ^^^5" SâPj^^S). ^ S^^^ î6o£doo*S)§ (^ô'^oS^ 
&*^c^<&. '^;Sê|^^ ^ï^ê^D' €^0 fo^ 3^^â sSpéo '3^)3' ?Sîâ^cXârrô rf€o<^ 

%^t)^^^^^ SS>^ sSéoSi^^D^ îâSàiPoon* "S»^ Aot^crD"! 2)^^,7^' ^o^^>^(âo 

26. ibid, S3 s3, 

27. ibid, 37 ;3. 

28. ibîd. 37 ;S. 

29. ibid. 58 ^, 

30. ibid, 80, ôi ;s. 

(^èj-141) 4^^^C3CSj* »^^»'cr»g© "g^eîTr^inS". 

'■,'■■109 — 7. ■;■ 



^od^^r fâ^^'Saïâ S'Sào.^.. ^^ydà S'Sio ^C^, ^^oTT^ Sà^^2â><^^- 
oxiicy^A. ••à^a'^âg' S)^cX&»D^ ^2JD SiPî5^a> caoSbSè'S? ^^ eàS^^^S^^ 

e&CÎI^r^cS*^^. 'ssotè^Sè ^53^ DcSd^ 'âé^â^éo) i^oir^^ ^^^^, êD^ Sî^?^^ 

^ ;3i%o5^ 5Sir»£rs: âr'iïoô^ oï^îàjSî) 3î)_>j^ Sïî^cSêo î3j|^A^ÎD S5»J5|îâ3 ;3=S. SS"® 
Vt^ ?xrAïè& eaJàiâfaoû^ S^cSSt'S^ SsâSo^^û. -^ ?3»â3 sir>^s$ sSsSir'ea 

.'ÎSfbOD^^ft SïicSiô sSi^S^S^ c^il). ss'îScôS* Sr»^Si)0^dâb. ee&Oô <S^ 
"S^^o s-^sS^^o" es-^c& A^é^ ^^^OôS&.36 S'Si^d^^/^ ?3^S5_^S5-^ 

i^*;S!^^ - 18fi &o(S 189 s. ■ • 

34. ibid. Sb3ffa-5-.oe£ _ ;Jr.ï5T3,|^^ ^^5^0 - 337 s. 

3«- ^ s&a^/tsS« - rtf^ôaûr-^fo ^ as. 89 «J«-s-«o. . • , 
37. *^x,n^iS&a _ iO-128.4. " 

1978-1979] û^^r^ê^ }6^y^:&- ~ ^¥^1^^ ^^^'«5^^ ^^ 

S'sSr»^§. ecDi ^^llr^S) eo"B. s'a) ^[ëo (Plcasure Principle) 
e^ ^^"o (Power Principle) si^ "Bo^ '^ê ;5o^>^ ^dirB^^^dS)oéj^& 

Sr-i^*. Sd ô H»o"SijS S^SSb ^sSo 'S&è" a.^ ç5S'«â"5o^ ç3^^;ies> <àî5^Ô. '«^ 
40, ^§iSS3nT»55j^oKo«:Sw ?5«^ §7» §^. !?• 


?S«^D2 S3b<^ £3-4 Bcij î5ô CTïSbSDâ/^ 

s^a'â)^ ;5ac2&, sào^^^ û ^^Sa^îà, sS>?s |p&^i§".^3 

S'&ç^^'a^coSà&lS SS'^sr^ *S3*DSa)' e^^&. g3«Dî;So ;3s5cûte^o^5 ^^ tÇ^j^q 
"""42. ibid» ^a5e^-5^oe^ «. ^oi^'g^o^^o - 191 sS. 

45. S>^2^i? ;3^g-ïD^Tr-(S6c». xn^^iSo îS:5co^25&xj, "^tr*eî7r«^, S^è^exi - 24-36. 

1978-1979] ù^^Sj^ê^ ?:3^^sS^ -- S^^-kp»^ ^^^ù^^ ^^ 

*iSîS&J*o Siû^o eâ^ri'' eîà> sS^to ^?râb S)dS?-.0 d'ô'^"2a îisipeâoar* &)^ro^a) 
cTd&Scio «^ôriT crâ'o. S3i:'î5aè& eçT-gê^S" ât»oa àoô ^Ô^ à^owâ ô?fs'ô 

ld*C5*<5£o «9^0 eë"^ û^^^^o (Self-confidence) ^ «2yef;âa ^otooa. î5|£ 
SoîîooS^ iTîSSû^;!, l's?»;)^ «)_ô_/â^ (Self-identity) 2.=*^^^ ^::>è^ (Self- 
consciousness) ^«àeôêôoâ. eto^âoéS ^§5^ iSoî^off* ^^^0^°'^ *^ 
^SÙ'tS^ ^^àâ' (Social Consciousness) ^ ^& ^otooû. «^^£fc ^^!iS 

Sr'^&ë ïS^jà^n» î;Sô:$_ô_^ &:èaôî5^ô. o-îSrcs&Eso :i5;^ ^^o&sb ^s?<sà 

46. Sy^^-TT'^ StfgT^TT'cOôcs. d^^^o^Ô'gS» (jf-CÎ;S 1880} -iàr». "ârsT-tf-rT*^ - 
îâèo 189. 

47. sSS^oîû «f^. esoj^î «•» ao-Br»&c8 - Siog^aô^^^ 

48. Sif^-sn-^ HëoU'-rT'ci&a. |_r°_^-iCP'/îtfg'*, -îSt*. -Irntf IT^, ^h 140. 

49. ^♦;&^_■a^îib^ClCfcn&/ oîSMtf -r-oô&u, S5C^. 117. r*. 11. 


Sào(^5'/ «"ssô, si^ap<§<&, " a|)îiesû&. ^m^&. ëoo^'^&<& ^oéS à^(J^a> 
Scpo* «^S2b [5$"ig^ë'& ^i2X>^§^oècDîC5Nc&o't3 ^^ 1^0*.^ à^^èfo a;ldâo i^'êgSoû 

S5g5§ 3a^ ijSsS ô'îSo e^^jpl) €?co. 5)n«o«5*o§^ DSd^o ^^k7^& t)^^-^^. 
ftscpST»^ à<3^ ^^ÏCP^co. 5>c?o8»co ^^aoiJeTo ^oî5^ ^a3 îSîâoa^ eÔefî3'd&Sûa> 
(Antî-heroes] -^^JpïSrr' ^^2:i^^^^dù Ssàô'^Sb .ciGé:DK?^ôb. ^'^^^S 
^^sî'S^ ^?^^o(5" i$^ooD<5", cTKô^è" - c?D eîSo^si oâerco (The civilisa- 
tion and its discontents) ^Dà^ôot^A'. ecSôîS §&g& ^. â. c5^o^. 
^*e:?^^^ iÎp^^D ^ê3*^%;l€a'* (The Modem Man in search of a Soûl) ^"^ 
[^0^^^, à^o§»^ è^jë'^'â^aîS 5.^. gPiS^S^, "sip^SDS^a Sj)î5ô>j_CP^e&o'* 
(The Reconstruction of Humanity) sSoâ ^?^o53-e?îà îfOoÛ 5?Sj«g^goè^a'CDrr 

^h 54. 

1978-1979] ^^^g- ^;^^;^ -- s^.^^ e^^^^^^o 55 

S^S^^Sàîâo. S)^5^^S5 ^o^gsao. eô ëo&'cp^g«:icSàoJ* ^ej' èr&Qièo&oS^ 

S'TeîS'^^ SiPéo^*^ S:)Ocyo. "lâ^'^cS î5eào 1)35 ^^o'ëîSa) ^éîoô ^ âPosSoOQ 
^?î)^d:^è3& €?o à^sS^cXàg^dîSô. ^c3»éS ;So&co, à'/ûoD, ;5o'§î5a> 'SiXiSSB^ 

Sp'SîSa). ^ ^^o S3:5^jp a^SJ^g" îS^dP^S'â) â^g^g- ^^o•î5 ^ïeso. (^^ê 
S:)Si5'^^^ Ç3 c5s5o (S:x)^jp ^a«^ea§er»^ïDi. Ô'tfî;? Do^ïS'Dê ^^^25'go j^^^do-D^f. 
v:)^Ô§€r' ftScie^oa^ ^S^ eo^6^g'âDS)0(^ |K2po;5^e^^ S^ifSSrèèîS^Ô. •'Itisîiot 

realistic enough in its social implications as it gives free play to wishful 
thînking and harkens back to a dead and dyîng past, for which few of 
the présent génération hâve any tears to shed/*^^ iSù^^é^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ 
\^è^^ ^^à^i ^CP^oD ^C^ S)^^cy^ t5 ^^o ipftoô. K^oS^ ^ïT Woë 
SSboÛ ^oe5?D. cyq>^ ^rOoû S)a)^§^^o^^ 57<i'g^ Siîâ^ ^o^?:). Sà^o r*^ 
^à^:^eîoê5* si)o05 ^^S», ç^odà^îST» ff^à^oDK^^fC^D Ss5^^o ^S) «yo^Ô'go. 

53. ï^>f^TP>^ ^S^To-.o-'Tn'oarcs, ^§^^7r«/<crg'^, xScr*. tx3-»^7r^, t^h 141, 6 ;5. 

54. d: Anjaneyulu, Social Conscîolsness in the Telugu novél. 6th AU India 
TeluguWriter^sCoîïferçnce^ Bangalotev 1974, p. 67. • ^ '■'* 


h:>cS roo'Spfc î5§f*oè^a*r5^D îS'S^à^^S^ S)S>;)3i);^ à^SpèTgo î -Si "â^sà ^^ 
Dip-e»^ âr*«6î5^ ^^^ ^^^^^oL ^^lûosS ^d6er"âD S^^^^ àr^Spê sSd'^ô'o. 

IxdsdS" î3sS55=€po'£^5î6 S'ePîS^^Sî' (Contemporary inner time-sense) ^^ 

"The whoie business of writÎQg is the question of living in that 

contemporariness. Each génération has to îive iu that what I am 

trying to make you understand is that every contemporary writer bas to' 
fiad out what is the inner tîme-sense of hîs contemporaries, The writer 
or painter or what - not feels this thing more vibrantly aod he has a 
passionate need of putting it down; aud that is what creativeness 

H^è^è ^^iXi^^ ê^-^àt^ [Kt^Qx^th'&^tà^ ^à. <$0(^crdS>oS* ^sSr^^ 
è^Sipâë" ïî^è*^ Ç^'^a ç^o^îoj'^i^o : S)^^??^ ^Sr>h &*'i^o à^sScPi^ë' 

55, Gcrtrudc Stein, How writicf is writtea^ Contemporary Litcrature, p. 55. 


£3 2) 

1. àoJ^ZPë^ 


So;^&oi50 Ssâêsë', ^5^^5?^:2ia â^jî^sSo??, ïjàl?^;&?? *Soô<Sà«3&. 

à^^Ô.^ î5oî5^^«^ ç?J^è^;$3S^ (^oîrîf^S". As'^'ââ, So^_^ srô ^KJ^Ô& 
i^^eo, Beo^ûS^ [^^éea àa;S^?û) [à'ïÎJ'ES^ |_^oS^ r^^fc) MÎ^r^S^ 
;Sjf£;5b5^ ^ lr;3C?5S'gSài ^6. ^a^^cîà spef^îio ^ë^^^T?^ &p6^!S^ 

1. i) aascf^àwn BT»^., 2-122 S3.( 121 K£Jg3e5g&ow^^^^ 

ii) e&T'SSsaj^^&oIeT'^.. 166-'i7â S, (107 Aeîga£îgaaj«w). 




•\....t...î5sàcîàsSb, ^^é^a?e35àû, î6sS5"«'5iD ^0^?S;Sj& sS^ij^sâû/ è^îS 
oSoiQciô, S)83^oSo-Dï;?e^. -^ ^toSSb pî>^'3oôi^ cxoéî dÊSSs*^2ioo& 

5^Sô^^ ^e^^cS5j*i^s£sD^^ S'^Es^p^^^ ^l5prsS^& Z^ààoi^^^ di&îS^ô, 

1950). ô . 

^' Vi;^è^^"'^^» «35Sbr-c1^g' sît^Jâao. IeT>^,, 25 s^èo. ^éTST^éf (1986). 
5. eo(j;^sSbSts^C^^^iî5^oî5:5coe3o, 228 ^.h (Î862). 

1978-1979] tT-^^nr^g;s^ 59 

^^s^o& D^tf^e^îi)oB •*c5àèo^aàDsSbD. ^ëo^CàsSa §^ôjpdôb^éD ^__^s5§o*'8 

«^&s5ôo^Sbî5^&, ^«3r;jtfSÊoî5oë)SD ^^dSr^^o^ti ^Q?5?^sSb2$, <âà^ir§î6s3ûD 
ooe^o<:^ "Se^fisa ejoj^o ë'oôoûiîs-eâa. «ôéS S7D^ -ë^ ^:S0*irgî5 "Soo^éS. 

eô ;S5'^^îS jscsj^&o i^^c3&s£û ^^ ^s5^:$ X^^D SDDîS r^âs^a ;às^ 

ea m ftJ 
■^o dàDA ^;S^3^ îSdÊgî** ^Ô, I eF*^.t 160 :S» 

SâiPo^SûrS S:ïÔS)cpï6SSx)c& dKâot3Q&"§ trzScPlfPcSsîx) B;Sn©^^ 

sSô'^iâûâ iT'^^iî'g^sSo ^Siû^a^^, î5jjS(SiP83^S^. edi&^îSlu^ >Sif^;^^^ ^â 

6, T, 8, eîïb^r^XS^S' S3ô'^;5a", I esT'^., li 


i) ^ÔJ&cd Si^^^ : 

Kjî)irào^& e3D^o3&. sito «a ^6^&,t> ^Qiin-. ô^j^S e&s^^a^ ^ï^sS»^ 
eîôo^s&" («&.. I«5»^.. 172^.) «a 5^;sajû^^ân-o^o^s»o^» l^s*^^ 

^à'ô^âas' ^ïbîTifc. «s,co& àâ*bô=sco&&. ^ôcs6«> û^^ çsûib^. «â 
"àô&oeroa a.^^ifc 5-0S5- :à^S,^iô ôfcoS&^jàS- SK^ è^^^oso^ 

9- «a stf^atu, II eâT»^., 7 a. 
10. «a ae'^ajo. H mt^.. 7 s. 

1978-<1979] ^ss-^^g^isx^ 61 

es co ^ r\ eJ 

;Sj*i3"g5' ;Sj*»C^jSgû sSsj^aSioc^ rï^cSo^ïè- 

^^i^'SjSo d^^o[&o ow^fcsào) S7dâx)éD ^oi^Sboi^od^àfî»** /eô», II e^^-. 
e^o^&e:)^ ë^S£»QQ&. î6sS&3î5 sàl^o^o^ î^^S5b& ë'coi^i^SD ^é'3S^^s£û& 

*'^^ë^ ë'055C£)0& ^5^J^S«C^C& ô^siosoo& ô"^^ 
** •^^ ■ es ■ eo 

^^ ^&.. 1 e5^./lT7 ;S/ 

*^ o 


^&& r;S&!à Zù^^t. êjto. /<6&& i^^^oèr? 3:5^ i^iS t^hë^^^ 

„ ^Ô., II ç^r^.. 42 sS- 

ilâ^ S'àgs^ àcSa^îà ^ooxSr?, ë^ âi^^à;i> ë'ooeàrô, '^o^^oëS 

ff'oAo;!* ûs srcfj&j? ^^&d ïï^i^tis^. ^^ë m^ë^^m i 

«s. S\&^S:5- «if^a-oJà) :Soë(SiûifS «(SC^ ^CixSt^ts^^l r&SûO 

îfÊoûs «ô'àsa2ï §à^^&^o^^. ^oef^ ^i^^asSo^ rit>âx>ë Km^^ 

sr*. Mj,S ï^â,^ ^;SS. £S^ ^â^gSiScSà^ô «.«îis. ^i^â^ à^i_^tF*s^^ 

1978-1979] ù-ï3-D^^gî^:3a> 63 


, Ç3^., I e^^., 205 ;î. 

iiî) ^<^i^ flSSrouffJ^oJ^cC&ftii» : 

S5^dix> îà^dàsSb §a);i*e^D S'jj^'âdâoo §^ô(y&. syôS (^ë^ ^^Sosx»^ ?fco«> 

s>D5î3*e5û. Ç3;à)^î5^ë' ;Se5'5SioS Kc5i&& é'î6 ë^d i3»îid^ 

•b^BÔ n»;5gS5ûD ST'oAoSl' SSb^ §^dî3^2b. ^ ^t>&^ f^db£k»D S3»5'^^b'gàoîà), 

iSààx>- jà^qs°^gS5DD ^Sr»oOSS). rTeûë'ào&S) îSto^o) DS). ^[dSi^ "ScûKoe» 
sSbeô^éSoL^S^&và îâsSj'ey^SiD^^^îà êôb (Repartee) ^î^«2fc — 

1 i. esôSiCS'^îSoa, II ^•T'g», 48 SS. 

12. es;^^^^^ sScrsîSx). I es^^,. 209, 210 S3. 


«otDOwS .'iC&^SsS) eS'^?^ r^gSîo^SaJ g'Jà^jeaS&r!» SbS^ô. 

SSir^Saos ^S^cSâa S'5?S'<g-5? OdàS). Ô^jy-Sô ^toêcJ&"5 OcSàSdâo DefôoO 

^ÛiS3jOÛ:to|_ e&53'o;Sx^ ïào£Sirs3-_^,&. ^ d^W^^&^^x,é^ $oi«a© 
'So;Sifa/û&, dâa^So-JÎSÈD, ôjf?î£?i;'^;Saco ^ciàoto' 5oj6ô;î (tsa... 


m ^A mz, ,»t» sse^âSo §^abf^-ç.Mi^ <. -^^ ^ * ^ - * 

1978-19793 tr-^^^ng^^ 67 

ii) a!)r:r^ '^âù^à^ûx) : 

«ô'SdiùSâiÔS* S):3è^ /^&^ "âAa'^SÔ <5Sjjba S^è^ d^o^ï sS)S)d3b S^T^)" Î^Ô. 

^à., II e^^., 5 ;S. 

€52^) S)c6ë'^^î5 a^2^gS3bâ§b iT'ëbsê)^& t53^;à^iârr5\ «os*;5^è^d:^coû' ^^ 

vSoôoC)/ e'^ûj^Sï ô'jsa^â' ^îS:>^^ tS7»sàL^î3*^2^ I ^SrOâ'Sà/^ -ë^ J^^ 
iii) ^oSif^oSô^fSeo : 

(t5&.. I «T»^.. 181 ;î.y ^0-gû !)î5:âeS'^SSb^ DcPcS^^eidÊSiû?? ^ào{^^&. 

iv) ^Jj^^^^: 


"é* obsède ^S)5^ S)«SûJûS'oa &cy^è'd'o^c*Sô^ Ko 

__ a^., l ^^^., 183 ^. 
^^ ^3_Ol5^s5553oa5'D ^ë^ê^ ÎPoC^^g^^ ô^gîS^tf^^î5> Sà^^esSiDn» e:5S)^Jpôo^ 

tPoa^Ô'gS£o. (^e^^ï;rj6§^dî)o <:^^:5oîàtâS^S). -^ ;5^gS^ ê^jpîS ^SiS-So^i 

V) ^ [dÎP^^^o SoW^m: 

aY^Sia& fô«^S5sSjèS ii^t^^ëo ;5oÇ3»^e3îS> îâîS^cSè àPif*Ûèr;âs:ri. 

II €;3^^.. 80 S5.) 

^^ï50 (Î98S). : 

1978-1979J ^;5-^r»gî^îi)o 69 

êë'jpîâ -ëi $)toS3b& ^oî»8î5*5'€5<^ ô't)oûfj»eâb. eôsSî^SbfS «*^pS?oSào 
^Joftao î" (^îi)*. I ^^jj.. 186 ;S.) t»D D^Ôo^, S)Sc:îs&« èrî5s?^si)ûS5 

vi) ^[iSj^ (g^^eJrCû ^à^Ôor&éb î 

^oe^oSS SSb^ë' 5rcpjpe95Sbci ë'ieSbsS Sè(jèo^ |à^Ôo& ^éoSi». "2)oSS>^oeîeô 
'â"325^îS^ep»î:5' 1 c3';Sos5)"td&o£fc, î5ï&^ 2^â.o^c&; ^^^?&o& ^^^^^ 

&p^&';îs5b/î &îS^£> ! %è3oo^ e^oSèîS*. '^^bôb 5^e5'Sorr\ *î3^ê5 ^Sé» 

19, <^:.'^ ô, 193 s3. 


4. ès5î6oSj«^S .: 

1978-1979] ù'â^sF'g-îSiJ 


— *" 

Çfîfè^^S'çs'^oJ* roS"Sp /r;i_;;jSp îâoîîjrè^ ÇPà:» (]S55»î;Ss^ ^^D ç»!^ 

?îocSoOÔ. fSo^jp^^n'g^^S'esàoe^O SoS-^jÔçrS^à daûg?^^îào^ ©îSsCfïioîS^Oî^ 

Q I 

(SàSiûà ;3»g^^co D'éfoÛÔ. ro^iSoS'^ Oo/f;2a3ci)oi3<3abû, «oôSif».lif 2SaîS> , 


^6s^C^ dÎT^Ssioa^ ^e5Siû^<^* <à23» : cp"â:>£3 CPîïeS^ â-»£r«. 53"^î6 cp^sT* 

^sSbûo S^Sè. '^^^ s55'^5Sb ^ efNjST^Cf^sSo^So ^ôb£3ûcS^û.i ë'^ècSû^S)^^ 5 
^ «5 es Vsâ^a a> 

1. »r»e>*r*gg'tfc»îSja, -s^^g';âe^^^îS3o. 2 ^ir»|^^&jj 

1978-1979] -^m^ ^^^^ S)oj^do^ 75 

;Sîà\€S)îS?)ô.5 '^â' ^^'ë"^ ir-ëû^o^ «)e3>i§c5àe:) ^^otà^-sô.^ -^ S£)J^& 

CpsS»?) ë'o"ED. s^îSsâûC 8D<ê3' ^D §)î$Nî6o&'ï3sS»co fCo^. ';5é5' sS^^s5bî5So 

<î> ^ es û cB o__xï 

8, ^o'S, 15 rSj^.ÇxSj^. \^>^^*'^ 


e5fS>â'2^sr»^^î5 ^ôS&.^<^ 5*^. «îS'^e^^Sia ee>^^ss'ô'25b,4 escrsTi^ë^sisoëb 

*iâo' ^'ef^SSDa ;ào€)o/^Si»3 îS &Shc?c£î^aiûO?î» «i&<:ïo^, <^2S'o^; sxotfo^ là^^ 

■■■£3'. . ■ ■ ■' ■ a^ , • ■ • *^ ^ . 

1978-1979] "ieorti a^ &s SoKfioSà '^'^ 

r:ùt>6PlS^rù ï3osS^^ëa^£ az7'4i»»^=o^è- e3&^J^e3SS»î5o^ «e|î^ 
a«î § 3o-^'& i^2pîS?^ ■§œ?ûî3 S'^^tà^iôc5;j_â. ào» : i) |^fî:S<§ôSpKeom ^ 

'ff*rf,&' ^J^^o8»tti ^eâ^to^'' iii) ^oi^iys-^sSaS ^l(^) «^^*='* iv) ^<^s^. 
vi) B£^'Soî5 ^j^57£î^;5mcSsô ^55^^ ^ïp^3toa2l vii) us'sr^s-as^'^JioS ^_^§bo 

leo/ûS a$ Sbo S2a3*:S 1^3^!°^ ^^^^ "^Ojiî^^^SiaîT îS>o&&. 

18. ■a-»a-n'cg'tfc8&o, -s^tfg'^S^^JÎ&xj, 4 Sir». 

17. wo'â. 6 sir». 

18. fflo-ë. 8 ïSj». (^3>. 'a^_S') 

19. «o"â. 9 3>T». (-«r.. •sS^J') 

20. >o-é. 12 S3J'. (^2j'. 'îS^i') 

21. wi-â, 24 i5r». 
22 «o-â, 82atr». 
2S. Mo-â, 28 Sx». 

24. i) ^o-sT»prtf»àk>, -5»;^g-J3 9^^£î&o, 27 Sj». 
ii) j_8©o/^€3«M-|atfa), ■s-tfg'îSô^^tfa». 22sxy. 






656' J&œ 





i) (à'S;sa^ Sogr°"(^^^c^oo(S> ii) ^o^ié^-^iS 

S'J&o^ iii) çps'!5'5'£>Sp/î55bû^ ë S'ëa ivl â^Jiè^Q^ 

' (2)1 ... p ' ©cjs 

i) eî5|s5pè^"a:5 ^e5'^s?t:îg's3bî5§o ^5b&. ii) 83^S3»£i 


i) «^cSaSp^^ efss ii) tj'^,, ^d'89S3»tSï^©^* 

^ . «»— . . . o „ - • ^<*l 

^pK&)©o^& ii) s5£îgo*S5bD^| ^5'(^S5cûî6& iii) ^si 
i) ^oi^n^tà^^^&i^^^ ii) à"â^|SSP|5siosâ&& 
ii) Ir&sèo^î) rù&, igc^oss ^& -=^(3' ^ô'è'àc^îâ^ 

^ CD es 

* âsècBân»»$r_§^ "SojC^eor*^ ^§^^ S)^^og)^oé3ê 2iS^o;5n5;^;S>5;^ «ej-a^^sSb&a* 
S)ÇosSaâo3ojSS^oc$3^ «3 cXSj^ ^s3è^ooî3a;Si>e)Sa %^\ '©oô', '©ê^<2^' -* 


"le«/t> S^ Soc So;fiSo;5) 




g'o'gj ..• 




1râo^o/û foES. ^§c5ào S5 ^ià^&. 



là»ô;5aS' î5o^<:J^ s»e^s&c» 5^2 c^S^ïâ c6o»^e^sà}o 


oSjoS'^ ••• 


6^^o ••• 


^o25b ••• 

/ (Si ^ Q 

© E3 *^Q 




/. Prof, H.D.Sankaîîa 

2. Dr.SR. Rao 

3. Dr. Ajay Mitra Sastrî 

4. SrL KM. Shadri 

Retired Director, Department of 
Archacology, Deccan Collège 
Postgraduate and Research Instî- 
tute, Poona. At présent Emeritus 
Professor; publîshed about twenty- 
five books oa Indian Archaeology, 
Culture and hundreds of rcsearch 
papers. He was the Chaîroian of 
the Indîan Archaeological Society 
for ovcr 10 y cars. Receîved Pudma^ 
hhushar m 191 A. 

Workcd in varions capacîties wîth 
the Archaeological Survey of Indîa. 
He îs onc of the first cxcavators and 
discovercT of sites of the Indns- 
valley cîvillzation. Decîpherment 
of the Indus script is his important 
contribution. Published more than 
60 papers. His workes are - Excava^ 
tîons at Rangpur and explorations in 
Gujarat, Loîhal and the Indus Cmli-- 
zaiîon and The Decîpherment of the 
Indus Scipt and so on, 

He is a Professor in the Department 
ofAncîent Indîan Hîstory, Culture 
and Archaeology, Nagpur Univer- 
sity; an author of many research 
papers on Indian History;, Archaeo- 
logy, Epigraphy, Numismatîcs etc., 
and of about fifteen important books- 
An outline of Early Buddhîsm; India 
asseen in the BrhatsamMtS ofVarSha^ 
mihira; ïndia asseen in the Kutiani-^ 
mata ofDëmodaragupta; Qtc. 

Epigraphical Assistant, Department 
of Epigraphy , Archaeological Survey 
of India^ Mysore. Inrerested in Epi- 
graphy and History; published many 
articles in the field. 


5. Dr. D.C, Sir car 

6. Dr. Gérard Colas 

7. Dr. M,D, Sampûth 

8. Dr. M. A. Mahendale 

9. Dr. S.G. Moghe 
10. Dr. Afka Somayaji 

A famous epigraphist and histo? 
rian, worked as Government Epigra- 
phist for India; Carmichael Professer 
of Ancient Indian Hisrory and Cul- 
ture and Director of Institute of 
Advanced S tudy în Ancîent Indian 
History and Culture, Calcutta Uni- 
versity. Edited 10 vols, of Epigaphia 
Indica, Wrote more than 27 books 
âod published a nutnber of articles. 

A French scholar with specializa- 
tion in the Vaikhânasa A-gama. He 
did his doctorate thés is on 'Archi- 
tectural Problems in the Marîci 
Sariîhiti*. Now he is working in the 
National Library, Paris. 

Dy. Superintending Epigraphist, 
Archaeological Survey of India, 
Mysore. 'Chittoor Through the 
Ages' is his thesis for the degree of 
Ph.D. Edited Prof. K.A. Nilakantha 
Sastri Felicitation Volume; presen- 
ted research papers in varions confé- 
rences and contributed research arti- 
cles to reput ed journals. 

Deccan Collège, Post-graduate and 
Research Institute, Foona. He is 
at présent the Joint General Editer 
for 'Encyclopaedic Dictionary of 
Sanskrit on Historical Principles/ 
Published Nîrukta Notes etc., and 
many valuable research papers. 

Department of Sanskrit, Rajarara 
Collège, Kolhapur. Published a 
number of research articles. 

An eminent astronomer. Retired 
Principal, Degree Collège, Bhima- 
varam; retired Reader, Kendrîya 
Vidyapitha, Tirupati and retired 
Secretary, Hindu Dhàrmapratistha- 
na, T. T. Devasthanams, Tiruptti; 
Took his Ph.D, in Astronomy. A 
Sound scholar in vcda and sistras; 
published papers and works. 


IL Dr. S,S. Barîingay 

12. Dr. B.V. Kishan 

13. Dr. VS.Kambi 

14. Dr. Venkitasubramonia 


15. Dr. {Mrs.) Nomita Duît 

16. Sri. B. Kutumba Rao 

17. SrL K.G. Krîshnan 

Professor of Philosophy, Unîversity 
ofPooîia, Poona- A learned Phi- 
losopher and writer of many articles 
inthefield. Editer of the Indîan 
Phîlosophîcaï Quarterly of the Univer"^ 
sîty of Poona, 

Professor of Philosophy, ADdhra 
University, Waltair. Authorof 'The 
Philosophy' of A.N. Whîtehead 
'Schopenhever and the Problem of 
Salvation' and Indian Philosophy of 

Lecturer, Institute of KanBada Stu- 
dtes, Karnataka University, Dhar- 
war-3. A weil-read scholar, Inte- 
rested în Vîrasaivism and published 
many articles, 

Retircd Professor of Sanskrit, Uni-- 
versity of Keraîa, Trivandrum. 
Worked on Nârayanabhatta's Pra-- 
kriyàsarvasvam for his doctoral thesis. 
Published many research papeis. 

Head of the Department of Sanskrit, 
Muralidhar GirFs Collège, Calcutta, 
published many research papers în 
varions journals. 

Retired Principal, A.J. Kalasala, 
Masulipatam. A learned scholar, 
specialist in Vyakarana and Alan- 
kâra. Published books and research 

/Vaijayantî' No. 7Il-16th Main 
Road, Sarasvatipuram, Mysorc 
510009. Retired Chief Epigraphist 
to the Government of India, wrote 
many research papers, cdited Vols, 
in the South Indian Inscription 
Séries, the Annual Report on 
Indian Epigraphy and one volume 
0f ■ Epigraphia Indica'. Author of 
'Studies în South Indian History 
and Epigraphy^ 


15. Dr. K. Krishna Mûorthy 

19. Dr. es. Venkaiiswaran 

20. Dr. rj'. MirasM 

21. Sri K,A. 


22. Sri K Rama Sastry 

Professor aod Head of the Depart- 
ment of Sanskrit Karnataka Univer- 
sity, Dharwar : The work 'Dhva- 
nyaloka and its crîtics' is his docto- 
ral tfaesis. Translatcd OhvanyUÎoka 
and Vakroktîjivita into English. 
Publîshcd Essays on Sanskrit lite- 
rary criticism; *Some Thoughts ob 
Indian Aesthetics' aod /Kalidasa^ 
ctc; wrote many works in Kannada. 

Retired Professor of Sanskrit, 
Annamalai University, Annamalai- 
nagar. A sound scholar; pub- 
lished many research articles, At 
présent he is an Hon. Professor in 
M M. Kuppuswami Sastri Research. 
Institute. Mvlapore, Madras for 
ih.Q èastracûdamanî course, 

/Kamalasadan'j iiear Jain Hostel, 
Dharmpeth, Nagpur-440 010. He 
is one of the reputed liviag Indo- 
ligists. Wrote more thao 25 works, 
in English, Marathi and Hiodi. 
Coûtributed many research articles. 
Editer of Cil, vols. 4, 5 and many 
inscriptions. Received the ti tle 
MahâmahopMhyaya în 194L 

He was a Lecturer in Vyikarana 
and Vedanta in the Annamalai 
University, Annamalainagar, for 
nearly 3 décades and is now an 
Editer il Sanskrit Dîctionary De- 
partment, Deccan Collège, Poona. 
His Works include many research 
papers both în Engîish and Sanskrit 
and the éditions of Svarasiddhanta-^ 
candriks, Mukura etc., etc. 

A scholar in the field of Mïmâriisa 
and Vedânta. He was for a very 
long time a Research Assistant in 
the Oriental Research Institute, 
Mysore University. His works in- 
clude many research papers in Sans- 

23. Sri Vi Subrahmanya 


24. Dr* N.S^ Ramanuja 


25. Sri. N.C.Vç Narasîmhaé 


26. Dr, S: Sankaranarayanan 

27; Dr. S.B. Raghunadha^ 


krit and the édition of many Sans- 
krit Works like Ralnatûlika, Siva^ 
taîtvaraînakara etc. 

A Lecturer and then Reader in 
Nyaya and Vedânta for a very long 
time in the Annamalai University 
and then in the Madras Sanskrit 
Collège, Madras, He is an author 
of many research papers in Sanskrit 
and of the works like Vyutpattivâda- 
vivaranUy Èâbdatarahgini etc., and 
editor of works like the Brahmïï" 
nandiyabhiïvaprakâsay Trmtsachhlokî 

Professer Kendria Samskrita 

Vidyapeetha, Tirupati, A tradi- 
lîonal scholar who specîalized in ail 
the sastras. Edited Taiiavacinta^ 
mani with Nyâyasikhamani and 
Prakïïsa^ and Jnapakasahgraha 
with Vrtîî etc. 

Head of the Department of Sâhitya, 
S.V. Oriental Collège, Tirupati. 
Transîated works into Telugu for the 
Sahicya Akademi, New Delhi; a 
rcputed scholar who contributed 
many research papers; an original 
writer in Sanskrit, 

Director : S.V.U,O.R Institute, 
Tirupati. He studied Veda and 
Nyiya. Worked on 'the Vîsnukundis 
and their Times' for his doctoral 
degree in History. Published many 
papers in the field of Epigraphy. 
Edited 'Bhojacari ta' and 'Tarkasan- 
graha' and *Tarkasangraha Dipikâ'. 
At prtsent he is publishing the 
'Bhagavadgltâ* with the commen- 
tary of Abhinavagupta with English 

Lecturer în Sanskrit, S.V.U. Col« 
Icge, Tirupati. A traditionai scho-. 


21, Dr, KJ. Kmhmmoorîhy 

29. Dr. r, Koleswara Rao 

30, Sri M. Pmbhakara Rao 

Jl. .Sri CF. M&gkm&ehëfja , 

■^32. W^^Sëkkâ Rëghuméka^ 

lar onginally» Author of the com- 
mentary on the 'Kriyà Kairava. 
CaEdrika' of Varàhaguru. Pub- 
lished many research papers în 
Sanskrit. The Chief Editor for the 
'srÎQîvâsa Bâlabharata' Project of 
theT.T.D. Tirupati. 

Lecturer in Telugu, S.V.U.O.R- 
iQstitute, Tirupati. Obtained his 
Ph.D. degree for his thesis 'A Criti* 
cal study of the Works of Tarigonda 
Vengamaniba' in the year 1981. 
Edited Jalakrïdavilasamu of Venga- 
mâmba. Published many research 

Reader in Telugu. Srikrisbna- 
devaraya University, Anantapur, 
Author of * Vasantotsavam' in Telugu 
and translated *Kundamâlâ' into 
Telugu. Published many research 
papers in Telugu. 'Âmuktamalyadâ- 
Saundaryamu' is his doctoral thesis. 

Heisone of the stafif members of 
the S.V.U,0,R. Institute, Tirupati^. 
Co-author of the work 'Brahmî- 
mayamflrti" in Telugu. Besides do- 
îng research on the 'Ramayana 
Kalpavrksamu' for his Ph.D. Degree, 
he is aiso coUecting and editing 
aainor poems, préfaces and literary 
essâys of Viswanatha Satyanara- 
yana. A contributor of many re- 
search papers; 

Lecturer, S.V.Music Collège, Tîru- 
patî. Working on the figures of 
speech in the Rasagangadharam for 
his Ph.D. degree. 

Reader in Telugu; Sri Krishna* 
devaraya University^ Anantapur. 
A Sound scholar in Telugu and 
Sanskrit. Interested in grammar, 

:'Pubîîshed; :■ books'',:and;:' .researcli 
V papers,, ■. ,. 

Statement of OwnersMp and Other Partîciilars aboiit 
Sri Vettkateswara Uaîversîty Oriental Journal 

(See Rule No. 8) 

1. Place of Publication 

2. Periodicity of its 

3. Printer^sname 

4. Publisher's namc 

5, Editor's name 

Name and address of 
individuals who own 
the periodical 

Sri Venkateswara University 
Oriental Research ïnstîtnte, Tirupatî, 
Andhra Pradesh. 


Dr. K.C. Reddy, m,a., Ph.D. 


Registrar, S,V. University, Tirupati. 

Prof.Dr.S.Sankaranarayanan, M.A.,ph.D. 



S.V.U.O.R. Institute, Tirnpati. 

Prof Dr. S. Sankaranarayanan, M.A.,Fh,D» 



S.V.U. O.K. Institute, Tirupati* 

Sri Venkateswara University, 

I, Prof. S, Sankaranarayanan bereby déclare that thc particulars 
given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.