r>* **: jJnnc
iWF ! “ fflSaHHHfejstfWfatfiJ::
i-m
; l!i8ilBllSISi@
:■. ' .
jap*.
Wiil'MnnwH tiavizmtt mL:>• • - M :;;-»: ipir-y
• * 1 - ; -:'■ t : "
.. „-. jd
A CRITICAL SURVEY OF
THE LIFE AND WORKS
OF
KSEMENDRA
RAJATBARAN DA T TARAY, M.A-,
Kavya-T-.rtha, Dip. Lib., Cert. Germ.
SANSKRIT
PUSTAK BHANDAR : CALCUTTA 700006
All rights reserved by the Author
First Published : August 1974
Price :
— ' - - - a-v
S.P.B.
Price R S .
60.00
Published by S. P. Bhattacharya from Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar,
38, Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta-6 and Printed by D. Dutta, at
81, Simla Street, Calcutta-6 in India.
To the hallowed memory
of
my parents
PREFACE
It was by the instruction of my revered teacher. Dr.
Gaurinath Sastri, M.A., P.R.S., D.Lit., the then Principal of
Government Sanskrit College, Calcutta, that I took up
Ksemendra as a subject for a critical study, a few years ago,
when I was attached to the above College as an Assistant
Professor of Sanskrit. I had almost completed my work, when,
suddenly, in 1967,1 was obliged to leave for a distant place in
connection with my service, so that the contemplated publication
of the work was consigned to futurity. However, at long last,
my study of Ksemendra, entitled “A critical survey of the Life
and Works of Ksemendra”, which is complete -in two volumes,
is just partly published ; and the first volume of the work sees
the light to-day. It is hoped that, circumstances permitting,
the second volume will come out before long.
Admittedly, there have already been some good studies of
Ksemendra (e.g.. Dr. Suryakanta’s) ; but, yet, I may say,
a more critical and comprehensive survey of the life and
personality of this great poet as also of his vast and varied
contributions to Sanskrit literature is, indeed, a desideratum ;
ard it has been my humble endeavour, within the compass of
the treatise named above, to remove the want as much as
possible.
The present volume comprising an Introduction and eleven
chapters deal with almost all pertinent questionsxelating^ to the
poet’s personal life'' and the history of recovery of his works ;
and for the matter of that all available data have been taken
into account and existing views and hypotheses discussed
and critically examined. Efforts have been made, in respect
of every conceivable point connected with the subject, to get
at the truth and to ke ep off Jtasty-and-uafouiidgd conclusions.
I fully agree wkh the Sutradhara of Abhijnana-Sakuntalam,
who says : “A paritosad \idusam na sadhu money prayoga-
vijnanam ” So I leave the present treatise entirely to the
( ii )
judgment of experts and connoisseurs, to whom my submission,
in the words of Kalidasa, is : “ Tam santah irotumarhanti
sadascid-vyakti-hetavah / Hemnalf samlaksyate hyagnau viiud-
dhih iyamikapi va //”
I have no words adequately to express my deep sense of
gratitude to my revered teacher, Dr. Gaurinath Sastri whose
animating guidance and stimulating influence prevented me
being overpowered by my numerous preoccupations and
personal difficulties which at times threatened suspension of
my progress of work altogether.
Grateful thanks are due to Sri Syamapada Bhattacharya,
Proprietor, Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, Calcutta and to Sri
Debesh Datta, Proprietor, Arunima Printing Works, Calcutta,
both of whom, in mutual co-operation, have given their best
help in getting the treatise published.
Any suggestions bearing on an any point regarding the
subject will be thankfully received and duly considered by the
author, who will also greatefully note and correct any mistakes
or misprints that may be pointed out.
Amaravati Colony
Barasat, 24 Parganas
The 9th August, 1974
Rajatbaran Dattaray
"VOLUME I
I
CONTENTS
Chapter
Topic
Page
Introduction
1—6
ONE
K§emendra—His Name
And Namesakes
7—20
TWO
Vyasadasa—A Name
of K§emendra
21-31
THREE
His Date, Career And Home
32—49
FOUR
His Family
50-63
FIVE
His Race And Caste
64—69
SIX
The Ruling Kings of
His Time
70-77
SEVEN
Did He Enjoy Royal
Patronage ?
78—81
EIGHT
His Teachers And
Advisers
82-96
NINE
His Devotion To
Vyasa And Valmiki
97—102
TEN
His Friends And Pupils
103—112
ELEVEN
His Works—Their Recovery
113—120
Foot-Notes
121—164
A Select Bibliography
165-173
Abbreviations
175—177
Index
179—184
INTRODUCTION
Kashmir produced a galaxy oi writers to whom the wealth
of Indian wisdom owes a great deal. Ksemendra who is
admittedly one of the front-ranking writers of Kashmir flourished
in the eleventh century of the Christian era during the reign
of king Ananta and his son and successor, Kalasa of Kashmir.
Ksemendra’s private life, like that of many other luminaries
of ancient India^ is shrouded in obscurity and has been almost
a subject of vain conjecture. But, yet, we are not absolutely
without any information about his parentage, student-life and
other things of biographical implication. Ksemendra’s father
was Prakasendra renowned for his riches and munificent cha¬
rities. Born with a silver-spoon in his mouth and brought
up in an atmosphere of unhindered financial prosperity, Ksemen-
\dra got ample opportunity to receive the best education under
''the best teachers of the land. He had an insatiable thirst for
knowledge, and with indefatigable energy he studied the
various branches of literature and allied subjects under the
guidance of the most distinguished authorities of his time. The
*] name of Ksemendra is associated with that of the reputed rheto-
rician, Abhinavagupta, with whom he studied rhetoric. Gahgaka
^ and Somapada were his other two teachers. He also describes
himself as the disciple of all masters of learning. Ksemendra’s
father was a Saiva and an earnest devotee of his god. He
spent a lot in promoting the cause of his religious faith.
Ksemendra’s teacher, Abhinavagupta was also a staunch Saivite
and an invulnerable advocate of Saivism. What his fatherjmd
his teacher had taught Him, what ..his environment and his
education had given him in the most early and formative
period of his career did not, however, have any. abiding effect
in the matter of fashioning Ksemendra’s rehgious faith. Ksemen¬
dra abandoned Saivism and ultimately embraced Vaisnavism.
This was due to the influence of his teacher, Somapada, whom
he held in high esteem. This change-over from one cult to
another necessarily marking an important phase of Ksemendra’s
2
Ksemendra
life is a pointer to the poet’s distinctive personality and is
therefore, frought with the deepest significance.
Ksemendra’s period of literary activity covers a period of
about five decades, falling roughly between 1015 A.D and
1066 A.D. It is evident that Ksemendra since his very early
years pursued his own line of poetic craftsmanship with
inimitable industry and zeal. He welded his pen to various
kinds of subjects ; and his literary output in its volume, variety
and value is of no mean order. He wrote poetical epitomes,
didactic poems and treatises on poetics and metrics and several
other subjects. To the polymath Ksemendra is attributed the
authorship of some forty works, but a lot of them exist only
in name.
Ksemendra wrote summaries in verse of the two great
epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabfiarata. Obviously,
Ksemendra was keenly conscious of the supreme inportance
of these two store-houses of stories as sources of plots of
the works of numberless poets of the land. He was evidently
also aware of the fact that the importance of these monumen¬
tal works further lies in their eternal popular appeal and in
the influence they are exerting through the ages in shaping
and sustaining the religio-secular trend of thought generally
pervading the life of the Indian folk in all strata of society.
It was, in all probability, this consciousness and a genuine urge
for presenting to the reading masses these two popular and
magnificent national epics in a condensed and readily assimilable
form that set him to the arduous task of composing the summa¬
ries, viz., the Ramayanamafijari and the Bhiratamanjarl.
The Brhatkatha of Gunadhya was a unique creation, a
stupendous workmanship, in the literary history of India. It
is the earliest known work representing the popular tale. Good
many poetic compositions, dealing with secular legends,
derived their plots, either directly or indirectly, from
the Brhatkatha. Unfortunately this great work is lost to us.
It is, however, immensely gratifying that the contents of this
story-book have been preserved though not in strictly identical
Introduction
3
forms, in its three adaptations. Ksemendra. Buddhasvamin and
Somadeva are the three master compilers who have saved the
contents of this invaluable story-book (originally written in Pai-
sachi Prakrta) from the disastrous casualty of their being com¬
pletely washed away by the billowing tide of time. They have
thus rendered singular service to the literary world. To Ksemen¬
dra, therefore, as well as to the other two, is due the nation s
gratefulness. Ksemendra’s Brhatkathamanjari whose worth thus
stands unassailed can hardly be left unnoticed in the study of
the Indian story literature.
The importance of the stories connected with the birth
of the Buddha is too great to be over-emphasised. These
stories have been used through centuries as sources of materials
by the many writers, painters and sculptors of India and
regions outside. This is a fact which cannot escape our notice ,
and the hard-working polymath Ksemendra has justly elicited
our unstinted admiration by his judicious employment of his
untiring pen in composing the Avadanakalpnlata comprising
a collection of the Jataka stories. It is interesting to note that
the work was translated into Tibetan sometime in the first quarter
of the thirteenth century and has since been looked upon with
the deepest regard as an asset to the Tibetan literature.
Having, as he did, due regard for the nation's store-houses
of myths and legends, Ksemendra employed himself with signi¬
ficant success in composing the poetical epitomes. It cannot
be gainsaid that the narratives contained in these epitomes are
mostly dry and dull and lack the spark of intellectual ingenuity
and the warmth of poetic animation. But, yet, in some places
they are interspersed with really beautiful passages indicative
of the poet’s imaginative faculty and power of description of a
remarkably high order. What is most important about these
works is that they are scrupulously faithful} to the purpose they
are designed to serve and appear to haVe been consciously
and cautiously guarded against being normally taken off in
feats of romantic flight into regions of emotional excesses and
reveries impeding the easy flow of the narratives.
4
Ksemendra
The Dasavataracarita of Ksemendra has a unique distinc¬
tion of its own. It is neither a religious poem nor a work
ot art. It simply gives a fairly interesting account of the ten
incarnations of Visnu, and is, for the major part of the work,
in perfect agreement with the tradition of the Purinic legends"
espite the fact that there is nothing extra-ordinary about the
book in respect of its theme or its treatment of the materials
utilised, the poet has evinced in his work a distinctly indepen¬
dent sprit by his inclusion of the Buddha as an incarnation of
Visnu. It is on account of this venture on the poet’s part
that the work stands out in bold relief as an effective protest
against the age-old anti-Buddhistic bias. After centuries of
stress and strain suffered by Buddhism under the sway of
Brahmamcal dogmatism, the Buddha was, however at long
last, slowly adapted into the Hindu pantheon. It is noteworthy
that Ksemendra is one of the few pioneers who had the urge
and the courage to put in writing their honest opinion in
favour of this adaptation of the Buddha. “The Brahmanical
writers,” observes Rev. Wilkins in his Hindu Mythology “were
far too shrewd to admit that one who exerted such immense
influence and won so many disciples could be other than an
incarnation of the deity.” Be that as it may. But it must be
admitted, in all fairness to Ksemendra, that his glorification
of the Buddha was not the least motivated by any religious
diplomacy nor was it in a vexed spirit of strained compromise
under sheer pressure of circumstances. Ksemendra had an
open mind, an enlightened vision and a progressive putlook
essentially opposed to base conservatism and bigotry that is
always abominable. He advises tolerance and free thinking.
He despises dogmatism and ideological servitude.
Ksemendra’s achievement as a poet trying his pen in the
various avenues of original literary activities is also highly com¬
mendable. Ksemendra writes a lucid style. He commands
prodigious mastery over the vast vocabulary of the Sanskrit
language. Unlike many other classical poets, he is completely
unassuming and is far from pedantic. He betrays no over¬
enthusiasm in the use of rhetorical figures. His compositions,
stuffed as they are not with external embellishments, have a
Introduction
5
pleasant freshness, a suave simplicity and an unsophisticated
charm about them.
Ksemendra is an adept artist in the use of wit and humour,
a master of pithy and dexterous sayings and a satirist par
excellence. His KalaviUsa. Samayamatrka, Darpadalana, Deso-
padesa and Narmamala have earned him a reputation not
unworthy of a gifted and industrious poet. Some of these
works give us interesting pictures, pictures that are highly
realistic and come up to the modern taste, of the nooks and
corners of contemporary society, of the dark and deplored sides
of life, and of the follies and frailties of the human mind. The
lamentable lack of balance and harmony in man’s manners
and customs, action and thought in the various walks of life
and in the different spheres of society seriously engages his
attention ; and with an eagle’s eye he probes into the depth
of all things whether shining with a glittering appearance or
lying dim and dumb behind the screen. He resents, ridicules
and seeks to banish hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of all
forms and types. Pre-eminently didactic in character, the said
works breathe an air of a genuinely benevolent spirit. Ksemen¬
dra has a philanthropic bent of mind, and, in the spirit of a
reformer, he aims at elevating the moral standard of society
by bringing into prominence all its loop-holes and absurdities.
He spares not the evils ; he lays bare the weak points without
reserve ; he strikes with vigour. But, he does not mean vio¬
lence. When he smiles, he smiles out of compassion and not
in contempt. All his pricks and kicks, jokes and caricatures,
ironies and satires are meant to rectify the society, to correct
the errors and to drive out the evils, and have the enlivening
touch of the benign spirit of a true benefactor.
As a critic also Ksemendra enjoys an important position
in the domain of Sanskrit literature. The Kavikanthabharana,
the Aucityavicara-carca and the Suvrttatilaka bear clear evi¬
dence of his profound scholarship in poetics and metrics in
their theoretical as well as practical aspects. These works
have also a supreme importance of their own in so far as
they bear the distinct stamp of Ksemendra’s personality as
6
Ksemendra
revealed m his independent judgment in respect of certain
values and principles relating to poetics and metrics. Ksemen¬
dra, being himself a pupil of Abhinavagupta, the great rhetori¬
cian then commanding universal allegiance, does not agree
witii his own master on the point of Dhvani (Suggestion)
being regarded as the absolute principle constituting the soul
of poetry but upholds the doctrine of Aucitya (Propriety) as
a rival theory. This is indeed a sriking phenomenon which
is far too significant to be lost sight of.
As a writer of epitomes and original compositions, as a
satirist and a critic, as a lover and observer of life, as a poet
bent upon reforming the society, as an untiring adventurer
exploring the varied fields of literary workmanship, as a writer
also of various treatises (not specifically mentioned here)
calculated to serve some special social and academic needs,
as one endowed with insight, integrity and enlightened outlook,
the Kashmirian polymath Ksemendra holds an eminent posi¬
tion. in the whole range of Sanskrit literature, and is quite
legitimately entitled to more than what has been said of
him in appreciation of his services. Speaking about Ksemendra,
Dr. Suryakanta observes, “Ksemendra has attracted me; he
has moved me to reflection ; he has revealed to me certain
aspects of Indian life, literature and philosophy, which I am
prompted to express, together with recording a few contributions
of fact and opinion that are likely to throw light on the many
facets of his complex personality, his works, his environment,
his faith, his fancy that fed on the study of real things and
the vision into which he poured his faculties.”
Ksemendra may, therefore, claim to be a source of interest
and inspiration eternally for scholars and poets alike; and
although he is not absolutely an unexplored field now, he is
not worn-out still, and his personality and productions legiti¬
mately call for further studies for a more critical assessment
and fuller comprehension of this shining star in the firmamenr
of Indian literature.
Chapter One
KSEMENDRA— HIS NAME AND NAMESAKES
The name of our author is Ksemendra. According to
Prof Weber, Ksemankara was another name of Ksemendra.
There is, however, no evidence at our disposal to corroborate
Prof Weber’s statement. The name ‘Ksemendra is (-serving
of notice, in as much as, unlike in the case of many' other
reputed poets or scholars of ancient Kashmir, namely, Udbhata,
Ruyyaka, Mammata, Bilhana, Kalhana and so on, this is a
name which is a pure Sanskrit word containing a very good
meaning. ‘Ksemendra’ is composed of ‘Ksema and Ind .
‘Ksema’ means prosperity;* and ‘Indra’ which is pnmarfy a
name given to the lord of the gods may be and is really used
here in a wider sense to mean a lord in general Hence the
word ‘Ksemendra’ literallv means ‘the lord of prosperity.
Ksemendra actually lived a life of prosperous activities dedi¬
cated to literature and human welfare. H.s name, th ^ refo ^
did not remain a meaningless mark with bun but had ite
purport amply fulfilled in his life and personality. Probab y
Ksemendra himself was also alive to this *
his name; and this our assumption is stimulated by ' “
sion in Ksemendra’s Kavikanthibharana. which is as follows .
Ksemam aindram sa labhate
bhavyo’bhinavavagbhavam.®
•Ksemam aindram' as used in the above extract is ^ phrase
obviously designed to suggest a reference to the poets own
name 4 and the expression as a whole also reflects t c po
purpose to realise in his own life a complete 3 usU J catl0n °
bis name. It appears that Ksemendra had a special fon
for finding, where possible, a correlation between a
a rtamin; and this feature of his mental make-up 15 reveal f°
in a concluding verse of his Mahabharatamanjar, where the
Ksemendra
srStSS StRrs
of a name to denote the name itself. 8 Tt k ;„ t .• P *
sfrlVof a W n e cie C n 0 t nie Kihm S ‘ **'*' **“* be '° nging
ci-x-r ^ r rr=
“ * ">*“ «PMns C Hari (k^ Wt .0^' bZC
S" 8 ) aCh na ,'h P ^ C Mi " iS " r dUring KalaSa ' s -kW w
SSlTw m*£T S “ ssala ' s f ~-
In the Rajatarafigini we also come across several other
“ r’m K th ‘ K ? na ’/ S their inifial and essent *al part
Con ha^H T " may *» con.
that during Santgramaraja’s rule (A.D 1003-10210
there was one Ksenri who was the wife of Tnhga’sTon Kan
darpas,„ha.. and thar ,he word •K ! e m a’ is
■It v ° a i t nne ’ Called K ? emama I ha . founded by Ksemagupta
2 p“ a aS of a,S ° Wkh a -gnLient tem^e
In having a name which, in its abbreviated form though ts
appears to have enjoyed for centuries a fairly wide popularity
in e alley of Kashmir, Ksemendra may rightly claim a dis
incbon ov e r many of the ofher repu J
dia whose names are not known to have so been current in
popular use in their own region or elsewhere.
We also know of good many Indian authors of the oast
CLT ? t0rm ' d " kh ‘ K ^ « -»* tnihal a“d
hnnnens in rhk SmM ,T K * !mendra Popularty called Ksema
i. way to have several namesakes in the literary
Name and Narnesakes
9
history of ancient India, it would stand us in good stead to
know these authors also in the event of any chance, however
remote, of confusion of identity arising out of mere sameness
or similarity of names. The following names deserve notice
in this connection : (i) Ksemahafhsagani, 17 (ii) Ksemajaya, 18
(iii) Ksemakara (Sastrin). 10 (iv) Ksemakarna, 20 (v) Ksema-
kirti, 21 (vi) Ksemanandanatha, 22 (vii) Ksemankara, 23 (viii) Kse¬
makarna Misra, 24 (ix) Ksemaiikaramuni 25 (x) Ksemaraja, 26
(xi) Ksemasarman, 27 (xii) Ksemavrddhi 28 (xiii) Ksemananda, 2 *
(xiv) Ksemendra, 30 and (xv) KsemiSvara. 31
In the domain of Sanskrit literature, we also come across
several authors bearing the name, ‘Ksemendra’. It is indeed
necessary to know them so as to ward off all chances of con¬
fusion in respect of our poet’s identity. We know of one
Ksemendrabhadra of Magadha to whom is attributed the author¬
ship of a work consisting of 2000 slokas by Taranatha in his
History of Buddhism. 32 Nagendra Nath Vasu in his “Visva-
kosa” expresses the opinion that Ksemendrabhadra is probably
identical with Ksmendra Vyasadasa of Kashmir. But, there
is obviously no reason for confusing the Kashmirian Ksemendra
with this Ksemendra who belonged to Magadha. In the Cata¬
logs Catalogorum we have five different Ksemendras in addi¬
tion to our poet, the Kashmirian Ksemendra of the eleventh
century The “Madanamaharnava” by one Ksemendra is ori¬
ginally recorded in Buhler’s Catalogue. 33 The manuscript is
classed under Jyotisam. It is to be noted that the name,
‘Ksemendra’ appears there with a query mark by its side,
obviously indicating thereby the Cataloguer’s doubt, presumably
on some reasonable ground, regarding the authorship of the
book. Since the book* is not available to us, and because
the necessary evidence is lacking, we cannot forsooth pronounce
any clear verdict on the question as to whether the author
of this book and our Ksemendra are identical or not. Put to
this position of doubt and uncertainty, we are obliged to base
our argument in favour of taking the author of the book as
a different man from our Ksemendra on the authority of the
Catalogus Catalogorum itself and on the absence of any con¬
tradiction to it yet known. The “Lipiviveka” 34 and the
10
Ksemendra
of “Hn,f K , ^ ere ,S another Ksemendra, the author
Hastijanaprakasa .«• This Ksemendra. belonging to Gurjara
wa S Jhe son of one Yadufarman. „ fc *«£££*£
In hi Frt T fTV ei,her ,l,eSe no K'«Jr as .
the Bhno n r,?- °' Pe '"“ n says: “ UstI y is in
the Roll A' ?f""• !lepOSi ' ed in ,he B °mbay B ™uh of
' Ksm ' have not bM " abk
deva’s Suhh 1 >- V h n T f ntroduct,on to his edition of Vallabha-
deva s Subhas.tavah, Prof. Peterson remarks : “The Hastijana-
Bh r v D f b by . Kiemeudra who
“ himself son of Yadvlarman” « The editorial note which
goes with Kjemendra’s “KaliviW published in the R
. * & ™ S <Par ' ’> '" cl "*s 'he “Hastiianaprakasa” as one
p.l»,nT"' f a W ° rk5 en ' iS ’ ei1 ,herC ° f ,he rCashmirian
,^ endra But ' ™ «* prefatory note introducing
fehed ifih. Auclt ^ av ' cSracarc a”' 'h« last of the works pnb-
he 4ls,if. tf-.T ° f "" Serics ' ,he earBer inclusion of
astijanaprak..a as a work by the Kashmirian K-emen-
Z T '"“a ^ e(c - "as been contradicted,
nd the revised view given there reads as follows : “a,ha ea
tatra Kiemcndrakitagranthcu 'Hastijanaprakitah' i,| g rantha .
Yadusniyms" 1 " 1 '“'a 3 ”” kaScid arvic; n" Gurjaradesodbhavo
Yadusarmasumiranyah Ksemendra hi jSeyam” This revised
view appeur reiterated as below in ,he Introductorv Note to
•tv , H V , a Pr ° edi ' i0 " Somad ^‘>’ s Kathisaritsigara i
. , astl l ana prakasakarta Gnrjaradeiodbhavo Yadusarmasu-
kascann Irtiyo’pi Ksemendrah asit”. The following obser-
vation of Dr. SuryakSnta deserves notice in this connection •
as he h “if !I' a - aSCribeS Hasti l ,rak « a <° Ksemendra, but
. himself admits, the ascription is doubtful” 39 But as
is quite evident from the above discussion, there is hardly
any room for doubt regarding the fact that Ksemendra, autho
astijanaprakasa ’, is a different person altogether.
- 40
Name and Namesakes
11
There is a commentary on the “Sarasvataprakriya of
Anubhutisvarupacarya by one Ksemendra, 44 alsocalled
mendra Sun 42 Anubhutisvariipa has been assigned to a^period
not earlier than A.D. 1250. Besides, the author of! the said
commentary, Ksemendra, was the son of one H^bhatta ot
H aribhadra and the pupil of KrsnaSraraa. In view of these
facts we can safely conclude that the author of the<
on “Sarasvataprakriya” was different from the great Ksemen
dra of Kashmir. 43 Dr. Krishnamachariar seems, however, to
have taken these two Ksemendras as identical^ This> ibu
evident from the fact that in the Index to his History o
Classical Sanskrit Literature, under the name ‘ksemendra wi.
as the references given against it indicate, means t g
polymath of Kashmir, he mentions in the footnote the name
of Dhanesvara as one who criticised ‘Ksemendra s views o
Sanskrit Grammar in his Sarasvataprakriya as K ? emendrakhan-
dana’ 44 This is obviouslv a confusion of which th
is not known. A book entitled “Ekasrnga” is ascribed to one
Ksemendra who is also considered to be different from our
Ksemendra. 45
The question as to whether the Kashmirian polymath
Ksemendra. is identical with Ksemaraja, the Samte Pb.loso p ^ r
and pupil of the celebrated Abhinavagupta of Kashmir‘has
long since engaged the attention of scholars. n • •
Dr Buhler writes : “An Abhinavagupta is also known as one
“ of a sect of Saivns. A .0,1. of hfs is J
b, Hall. Catal. p. 199. as well as several worts by a pup.1
of this Saiva called Ksemaraja. It is not unlikely t
rlja may be the same as Ksemendra. But as the works quoted
bv Dr. Hall are not accessible to me, T leave the question un¬
decided”. 46 Having thus suggested a likelihood o semaraj
being identical with the Kashmirian poet. Ksemendra, Dr
Buhler again in A.D. 1877. in his Kashmir Report, proposed
fhe identification of this Ksemaraja with a Ksemendra who
wrote a Spandasandoha and a Spandanimaya but whom he
regards as certainly different from Ksemendra. the Kashmnan
polvmath. 47 The two manuscripts, discovered by Dr. Buhler,
of Spandasandoha and Spandaniruaya evidently gave Ksem
12
Ksemendra
regarding^e^ntity oflhdr^wthor T ^ C ° nfusion
"* authorship of , hCM ,wo ™ k *° ZZ ^
Dr. Buhler’s observation as Z,H k embarrassin 8 question,
to solve the question hv above attempts, however,
Ksemendra wfth Ksemaraia r ° POS !h g a " f ind ! ntifica ^ on of this
ranam. As a matter of f pt dU u' ° f Samb apancasikaviva-
Spandasandoha and Soa !t l *** CO,ophons to ^ works,
have the!!! Spandan,r,ia y a a * available in print we
of their author.Further t 2 TT”' * ** —*
of Spandanirnava ‘K , 6 f ° Urth concludl 'ng verse
tbe name of its author.^' aL^ bofc ^ ™
res K n e„ -is rr: P ,rr:;
and SpahdaZ : , Sc“ P rb' h Ih WOtk K Spandas “ d <»“
It was; * ' -<-rred to by the author as his own 51
■K^^dra ' rplace OS of P r< ab ' ! '- a • S " ibi ' 1 *"” wh ' ch reoordcd
of those " ■!» "■"« of author
ones (i.e., Spandasandoha and Spandanirnaya).
tion ^ T Pr ° f ' Peterson who firs t of all proposed identifica-
XL T?% Wit \ K?CmCndra Vy5Sad5sa - lhe Kashmirian
there is reason to F ' rSt PeterS °" Writes : “Kshemendra,
converted "Z n Tv? * WS y0U,h 3 Saiva - a " d was
charya (Buhler’s Kash mi ^Report' h^s,^ 2°"f"
fher^rtlnr^ tnTco AbhinaVa 8“ pt5ch -y a - "when
*T P *n*7 Aw ea by a
.• ‘ ' , S ° ften the case - two names of identical nuroort
tor one and the same writer”/- 2 l n suDDort of his: nh P P
sumption. Prof. Peterson further remarks : “Kshema^r may
have changed h.s name to Kshemendra at the time of his con
version, as Saul changed his to Paul. For the extent to which
synonyms are used in the sphere even of proper ale! t
India see some remarks by Max Muller in the valuable note
he has appended to his India : what can it teach us? p. 314
We shall see later on a case where the poet Harsha has lain
Name and Namesakes
13
concealed under the synonym Ruchikara ’. B3 While proposing
the above identification on the basis of some arguments of his
own that cannot, indeed, forthwith be set aside, Prof. Peterson
was fully alive to Dr. Buhler’s observation on the point which
was opposed to his. He thus frankly submits : But I put
forward this identification with all reserve, as it has the weight
of Buhler’s authority against it. Buhler, who first found the
Sambapafichasikavivaranam, has himself proposed the identi¬
fication of our Kshemaraja with a Kshemendra who wrote a
Spandasandoha and a Spandanirnava. both of which it has
to be noted, deal, like the Sambapafichasikavivaranam, with the
Kashmirian Saivite doctrine, but that Kshemendra he regards
as ‘certainly different from Kshemendra Vyasadasa’.” 54 In
1884, Dr. Buhler reiterates his considered opinion against the
identification of Ksemaraja with Ksemendra Vyasadasa and
records his disagreement with Prof. Peterson on this point. He
writes : “In his note on the Sambapaficasikavivarana, which is
also represented in the Government Collection of 1873-77,
Prof. Peterson proposes to identify its author, Kshemaraja with
Kshemendra Vyasadasa. T am still unwilling to agree to that
step as in 1877”. 55 With this, Dr. Buhler advances some
argument in his support, suggesting also how the problem could
be finally solved. He says : “For though the names are really
identical, they are so common, and both Kshemaraja’s and
Kshemendra’s compositions so numerous 56 that they probably
designate two different persons. The question can be settled
only when the name of Kshemaraja’s father is found”. 57 In
1894, we find Prof. Peterson revising his former view,, thus :
“He (i.e. Ksemendra) mentions his guru Abhinavagupta. But
my identification of him on that ground with Kshemaraja, T.
p. 11 is wrong.” 58
The attention of modern scholars also, including Dr. S. K.
De. Dr. K. C. Pandey and Dr. Suryakanta, has been focussed
on the question of identification of Ksemaraja with Ksemendra.
Dr. De, in 1923, concludes his discussion on the topic, saying :
“The question, therefore, cannot be taken as definitely settled,
and can be satisfactorily solved when, as Buhler long ago
pointed out, the name of Ksemaraja’s father is found”. 58
14
Ksemendra
Dr Parley, m 1935, concludes his dissertation on the above
top.c with these words : “After stating the above arguments
e leave it now to the reader to pronounce the final vefdict”™
urya anta also, in 1954, having discussed the problem in
some details, finally remarks : “It is safe however to let the
quesfion remain open.” 01 These scholars, therefore, although
vet an^ar 1 '! h n0t '° KsemarS j a with Ksemendra.
yet appear to be m a position not sufficiently safe and sound
terms ™ I” 0 " IO giVC their verdict in clear ^d emphatic
iTsh ^ n 7 PUtS US Under Ae ohn ^ion of making
a fresh endeavour to solve the problem in the light of whateve^r
haW already been or ma y sti11 be forwarded against
nninf fi h at r n ° f K?emer5ja ^ Ksemendra. The foUowing
points embodying the arguments already noticed by scholar!
evidently deserve our first consideration in this connection
(0 Ksemendra’s birth may be assigned to a date not
earlier than 990 A.D.°* At that time Ksemaraia
must have been an accomplished young man. This
.s evident from the fact that he was one of those
who requested Abhinava to write the Tantriloka
composed about that time. 03
(ii) K?mendra’s literary career covered the second and
third quarters of the eleventh century. 04 Ksema-
rajas literary activity beginning from the close of
the first quarter did not extend beyond the second
quarter of the same. 65
(m) Ksemendra’s father was Prakasendra and his grand¬
father Sindhu. 00 Ksemaraja, as we know, was
a cousin (pitrvya-tanaya) of Abhinavagupta who
mentions one Vamanagupta as his uncle (pitrvya).
Since we do not know of anv other uncle of
Abhinava, we might feel tempted to believe that
Vamanagupta was Ksemaraja’s father. 67 But that
might merely be an innocent supposition without
the weight of a valid conclusion. We are however
told that Abhinavagupta’s grandfather was Variha-
Name and Namesakes
15
gupta . 68 It is not unlikely that this Varahagupta
was the grandfather of Ksemaraja also.
(iv) Ksemendra composed his last known work, the
Dasavataracarita, in Tripuresasaila, a place which
was perhaps a favourite place of repose for the
hard-working poet, if not his usual place of resi¬
dence. But Ksemaraja, as it appears from his own
statement in his Vivrti on the Stava-Cintamani,
lived in Vijayesvara.
(v) Ksemendra and Ksemaraja stand out in sharp
contrast to each other, so far as their personality,
their temper and temperament, as revealed in their
works, are concerned. Ksemendra is a normal man,
realistic and interested in worldly affairs, whereas
Ksemaraja is averse to materialism and is urged
by a craving for spiritual upliftment .® 0
(vi) ‘Ksemendra’ and ‘Ksemaraja’ are obviously two
different names.
(vii) Ksemendra has a secondary name, Vyasadasa, which
is often found coupled with his original name.
But Ksemaraja, either in the body of his works
or in their colophons, never appears to have any
such secondary name.
(viii) Both Ksemendra and Ksemaraja were pupils of Abhi-
navagupta. But Ksemendra’s contact with Abhi-
nava does not seem to have been so close and
intimate as that of Ksemaraja who was professedly
an adherent disciple of the great philosopher . 70
(ix) Ksemendra was originally a Saiva, but later on
he embraced Vaisnavism. Ksemaraja, on the other
hand, was a staunch Saivite throughout his life.
(x) Ksemendra is rather eloquent in providing informa¬
tion about his parents and ancestors, his friends
and associates, the ruling king and the social and
political conditions of his time and such other
J6
Ksemerulra
things as are‘decidedly of great biographical value.
Ksemaraja is conspicuously silent on his genealogy
or personal history, always hiding his light under a
bushel and being apparently free from the trace
of natural vanity.
(xi) Kscmendra’s compositions are chiefly of literary
interest or didactic value. But the works of Kse¬
maraja are pre-eminently dialectical.
Dr. K. C. Pandey has advanced most of the arguments
given above, viz., those bearing nos i to viii. Points nos vii,
x and xi have been set forth by Dr. Suryakinta. Dr. De has
put forward the arguments nos vii to x. He has taken note
of the question of chronology also.
The following points, as supplement to the above, may
now, to our advantage, be taken into consideration in connec¬
tion with the question under discussion.
(xii) We may be almost sure that Ksemaraja had the
same great grandfather as Abhinava’s. But the
great grandfather’s name is not known to us. We
are, however, told that the names of Abhinava-
gupta’s father, uncle and grandfather and the earli¬
est mentioned ancestor of the family were Nara-
simhagupta , 71 Vamanagupta , 72 Vnrahagupta 7 " and
Atrigupta ,' 4 respectively. All these names have
the ending ‘gupta’, a term which denotes a sect
of Kashmir Brahmins . 75 It is, therefore, quite
likely that the name of Abhinavagupta’s great
grandfather, and therefore of Ksemaraja’s also, had
the same ending, i.e., ‘gupta’. The name of Kse-
mendra’s great grandfather. Bhogindra, has no such
ending, and is thus obviously a different name
possibly denoting a different person. Having
different great grandfathers, Ksemaraja and Ksemen-
dra cannot be identical.
Name and Namesakes
17
(xiii) In the body of his works or in their colophons,
Ksemaraja is variously named, as Ksemaraja,™
Ksema, 77 K&ema-Rajanaka 18 or Rajanaka-Ksema-
raja. 79 But the name of Ksemendra^ wherever it
occurs, either in his books proper or in their colo¬
phons, appears invariably as Ksemendra. Probably
it was a conscious and considered measure adopted
by Ksemendra that he always gave in his books
his full name instead of the possible abbreviated
form, ‘Ksema’. In the colophons also there is
given the full forename of Ksemendra, and in seve¬
ral cases we find his secondary name ‘Vyasadasa’,
or his father’s name ‘Prakasendra\ or both men¬
tioned along with the poet’s own original name.
This practice was presumably prompted by the
purpose of guarding the readers against all chances
of Ksemendra’s wrong identification with his senior
contemporary Ksemaraja who, as we know, was
equally known by his shorter name, ‘Ksema’.
(xiv) Ksemaraja is supposed to be the same as the
Ksema mentioned by Abhinavagupta in his Tan-
traloka (Ch. 37). He was not only one of Abhi-
nava’s favourite pupils but a cousin of his. There
is no evidence to show that Ksemendra was a
blood-relation of Abhinavagupta.
(xv) Abhinavagupta was a Brahmin. Ksemaraja, being
his cousin, was also evidently a Brahmin which
Ksemendra probably was not. 80
(xvi) In the colophons to his various works, Ksema¬
raja is often described as an ‘Acarya’ of the
Mahesvara school of philosophy, whereas Ksemen¬
dra is never so described. Only the word ‘Kavi’
or ‘Mahakavi’ sometimes appears prefixed to Kse¬
mendra’s name. It is, however, noteworthy that
the colophon in the manuscript of Ksemendra’s
Carucaryasataka which Prof. Peterson had disco¬
vered in Jeypore and a portion of which is given
2
18
Ksemendra
by him in his First Report describes the poet as
Mahesvaracaryavarya. 81 This is probably the only
known instance of Ksemendra being so described
in a colophon. It must, however, be noted that
the printed edition of the book, in its colophon,
does not describe its author as Mahesvaracarya. It
seems really inconsistent that the poet who des¬
cribes himself as Vyasadasa in the very last verse
of the said book should, immediately after, be
declared in the same strain in the colophon as an
‘Acarya’ of the Saivite system. We, therefore, feel
inclined to believe that it was purely a scribal error
probably caused by a confusion regarding Ksemen-
dra’s identity which described Ksemendra as such.
(xvii) Ksemaraja studied both literature and philosophy,
and Ksemendra, according to his own statement,
read literature, perhaps only literature^ with Abhi-
navagupta. There is indeed no evidence to show
that Ksemendra read any other subject with this
teacher, 82
(xviii) Ksemaraja frequently gives unequivocal expression
to his absolute devotion to Abhinavagupta as his
‘guru’ and to none else. 83 Ksemendra, on the
other hand, mentions the names of a number of
persons from whom he received instruction or
inspiration, and he calls himself ‘sarvamanisisisya’. 84
In the single known statement that Ksemendra
makes about Abhinava, he simply records his
honest appreciation of the latter’s profound scholar¬
ship. 85 Besides, Ksemendra seems to have the
highest regard for the Puranic character, Vyasa,
as well as for his spiritual guide, Somacarya.
(xix) Ksemaraja. as is but apparent, carried on the
work of his teacher, Abhinava, in the right spirit
of a staunch follower. He harnessed his abilities
to the task of explaining and establishing his master,
not only in the field of philosophy proper but in
Name and Namesakes
19
that of poetics as well. A commentary called
Udyota on Abhinava’s Locana has also been as¬
cribed to Ksemaraja. 86 But. Ksemendra had an
independent way of his own. He did never bother
himself about Abhinava’s philosophy. What is still
more important is that he had the boldness to
bring in a rival theory, namely, that of Aucitya,
in the field of poetics which was then under the
sovereign sway of Abhinavagupta.
(xx) Ksemendra’s forefather, Narendra was a minister
of Kashmir. 87 We do not know of any ancestor
of Ksemaraja who held an administrative post of
the same or a similar character.
(xxi) Ksemendra was born and brought up in an atmos¬
phere of affluence and happiness. We cannot gather
any direct information about Ksemaraja’s family
either from Ksemaraja or from any other source.
It may, however, be stated that Ksemaraja, a cousin
and pupil of Abhinava as he was, certainly came
of and lived in a family which was distinguished
for intellectual attainments and scholarly mode of
living surcharged with the spirit of renunciation
and devotion to Siva. 88
(xxii) Peterson suggested that Ksemendra and Ksemaraja
were identical, ‘Ksemaraja’ having been the poet’s
original name changed to ‘Ksemendra’ by change
of religion. 89 It is to be noted that, unlike in the
case of ‘Harsa-Rucikara’ cited by Peterson as an
illustrative example in support of his contention
and unlike in many other similar cases also,
in the supposed change of name from ‘Ksemaraja’
to ‘Ksemendra’, there is retained the full essential
part of the earlier name, i.e., ‘Ksema’, making the
conjectured change strangely insignificant and un¬
worthy of claiming our credence. Further, the
purport of the supposed new name (i.e., ‘Ksemen¬
dra’) is not markedly consistent with the spirit of
20
Kietnerulra
the Vaisnava-Bhagavata faith which is supposed to
have been responsible for the change in question.
This is also perhaps a legitimate ground for chal¬
lenging the validity of Peterson’s supposition.
(xxiii) The supposed identification of Ksemendra with
Ksemaraja is rudely rocked also by the fact that
there is no mention either by Ksemendra of a
single one of the works attributed to Ksemaraja or
by Ksemaraja of any one of the works attributed
to Ksemendra.
(xxiv) Dr. C. Kunhan Raja, in his New Catalogus Cata-
logorum describes Abhinavagupta as ‘guru of Kse¬
maraja and Ksemendra’. This reveals the learned
scholar’s supposition that Ksemaraja and Ksemen¬
dra were two different personalities. 90 The vali¬
dity of the supposition may be further confirmed
with reference to several other authentic catalogues
so far compiled in India and abroad.
Chapter Two
VYASADASA—A NAME OF KSEMENDRA
In October, 1872, Dr. Buhler informed the academic world
of his acquisition of a manuscript of the Brhatkatha, bearing
the date, Samvat 1742 (A.D. 1685), the colophon of which,
as quoted by him, mentions ‘Vyasadasapara’ as a name of its
author, Ksemendra. 1 This name, ‘Vyasadasapara,' by itself,
evidently does not afford any reason for its immediate rejection ;
and it would rather suggest the probability of Ksemendra having
been a fervent devotee of some saint or apostle called Vyasa¬
dasa. But we cannot accept this name-form in view of the
fact that in each of the several other manuscripts of Ksemendra’s
works, subsequently discovered, where the other name of the
poet actually appears either in the body of the book or in the
colophon or colophons of the same, it is simply ‘Vyasadasa’
and not ‘Vyasadasapara’ that is mentioned. In fact, scholars
including Dr. Buhler himself have all accepted the form ‘Vya¬
sadasa’ and do not appear to have bothered about the other
available form ‘Vyasadasapara’ as noted above. As is obvious,
the scribe of the manuscript of Dr. Buhler’s acquisition as men¬
tioned above, was removed from the time of composition of
the work concerned by about six centuries and a half. Dis¬
tanced from the poet by so long a period, the scribe certainly
made no unpardonable mistake, if, through sheer ignorance
about Ksemendra the man, he wrongly wrote and also meant
‘Vyasadasapara’ for Vyasadasa* as a name of Ksemendra.
It is also quite probable that the mistake was in the very origi¬
nal now unknown from which this scribe belonging to the
seventeenth century copied. Nor is it unlikely that it was a
careless slip, on the part of this copyist himself, which, in the
colophon of the manuscript under reference, by writing ‘a’
(short) for an ‘a’ (long) (in euphonic combination) in the
supposed original, put ‘Vyasadasaparakhya’ for ‘Vyasadasapa¬
rakhya’ as an expression compounded with the name ‘Ksemen-
22
Ksemendra
dra’. Whatever be that, it is no doubt a mistake and ought
to be set aside as such.
In his Kashmir Report, Dr. Buhler states that the name
‘Vyasadasa’ is given in all of Ksemendra’s works except in the
Kalavilasa. 2 While making this statement, Buhler’s coffer of
discoveries relating to Ksemendra, as we know from his Report,
contained die following works of Ksemendra : (i) Brhatkatha-
manjari, (ii) Bharatamanjari, (ini Kalavilasa, (iv) Ramayana-
mafijari, (v) Dasavataracarita, (vi) Samavamatrka, (vii) Vya-
Sastaka, (viii) Suvrttatilaka, (ix) Lokaprakasa,' and (x) Nlti-
kalpataru. 3 Hence, in the above statement, by ‘all of Kse¬
mendra’s works’, Buhler necessarily refers only to these works
of Ksemendra. Of these works, again, the Vyisastaka as we
have it in print is not a distinct composition by itself, but
forms just a portion of the concluding verses of the Maha-
bharatamanjari with no mention of the poet’s name separately
attached to that portion only. It is, however, admitted by
Dr. Buhler himself 4 that the Vyasastaka is given at the end of
the manuscript of the Bharatamanjari 5 which he had bought at
Kashmir. But the fact remains, as the Report gives us to
understand, that Kashmir furnished him also with a distinct
manuscript containing separately the Vyasastaka, though it is
not definitely known whether the said manuscript had any
mention of the poet as Vyasadasa. As regards the Kalavilasa,
again, it must be noted that, although the available printed
edition and evidently the manuscript copy of the book which
Dr. Buhler states to have bought in 1873-74 at Bikaner do
not mention the poet as Ksemendra Vyasadasa but simply as
Ksemendra, the copy discovered by Rajendralal Mitra at Benares 6
presents a striking departure in giving, in the concluding colo¬
phon of the book, the name ‘Vyasadasa’ as a name of Ksemen¬
dra. 7 It is note-worthy, however, that the copy mentioned
above, which is dated Samvat 1821 and is in Bengali character,
is obviously of a later date and cannot, therefore, be allowed
to enjoy an equal share of authenticity, in so far at least as
the colophon is concerned, with the other known copies of the
book, which may reasonably be deemed as more faithful,
genuine and dependable in this respect. Now, as things are,
Vyasadasa—A Name
23
the Kalavilasa is not the single exception where the name
‘Vyasadasa’ is not given, but the Ramayanamanjari and the
Lokaprakasa as we have them in print are also similar cases
where the name ‘Vyasadasa’ does not occur. To effect a
reconciliation of this fact with Dr. Buhler’s statement as recorded
above it may be presumed that the particular manuscripts which
Buhler had before him of the Vyasaataka as a distinct composi¬
tion, as also of the Ramayanamanjari and the Lokaprakasa,
did actually contain the name ‘Vyasadasa’. The presumption,
so far at least as the Lokaprakasa is concerned, might be sup¬
ported by what Dr. Buhler himself says in his Kashmir Report
in recording his view on the authorship of the said book;
he says : “Among the Koshas the most important work is the
Lokaprakasa of Kshemendra Vyasadasa, Nos. 339-40, a copy
of which is preserved in the Berlin library, and has been des¬
cribed by Professor Weber, Catalog., p. 224. I cannot agree
with Professor Weber either as to the age of the book or as
to its value. Kshemendra Vyasadasa can be no body but
the poet, who wrote, as I have shown above, in the eleventh
century. If the surname were not sufficient to prove this,
the contents of the book would.” 8 From the above statement
it appears beyond the least shade of doubt that the name
‘Vyasadasa’ was actually there in the manuscript which Dr.
Buhler had before him of the Lokaprakasa. This again tends to
lend support to our above presumption in respect of the other
two disputed manuscripts, too.
Dr. S. K. De, in the first edition of his Sanskrit Poetics, 9
as well as in the second and revised edition of the same
work, 10 in perfect harmony with what Dr. Buhler had said
in 1877, opines that ‘Ksemendra’s surname Vyasadasa is given
in all his works with the exception of his Kalavilasa’. Dr.
Buhler’s position has been discussed above in the light of
as much relevant materials as happened to come to his
notice when he made his statement. Dr. De evidently had
before him, though not at the time of publication of the first
edition, yet surely when the second and revised edition of his
above-mentioned book was published, all the works of Ksemendra
24
Ksemendra
that had been printed till 1960 A.D. The number of such
works, if our account is true, is eighteen. The works are :
(i) Mahabharatamanjari, (including the Vyasastaka), (ii) Brhat-
kathamanjari, (tii) Kavikanthabharana. (iv) Samayamatrka,
(v) Suvi-ttatilaka, (vi) Aucityavicaracarca, (viil Narmamala,
(vm) Carucarya, (ix) Darpadalana, (x) Sevyasevakopadesa
(xi) Dasavataracarita, (xii) Nitikalpataru, (xiii) Ramayana-
manjan, (xivi Lokaprakasa, (xv) Desopadesa, (xvi) Kalivi-
lasa, (xvn) Avadanakalpalata, and (xviii) Caturvargasamgraha.
Of these eighteen books, the first twelve mention the name
‘Vyasadasa’ and the last six do not.. Ksemendra’s name ‘Vya-
sadasa' is thus given in only 67 percent of his works that
are available in print, and the KalavilSsa is not the solitary
exception but is only one of the six exceptions, forming the
remainder of 33 per cent of his works published till 1960 A.D.,
where the name ‘Vyasadasa’ is not given. This being the state
of things, the opinion of Dr. Dc as given above can hardly
be accepted without necessary modification ; and it would be
proper to say, just as Le'vi also states, that the name ‘Vya¬
sadasa is assigned to the poet’s name in the majority of his
known works." Dr. Kane also remarks : “He calls himself
Vyasadasa in almost all his works.” 12
A question extremely pertinent to the present discourse
is whether the name ‘Vyasadasa’ was adopted by the poet
himself or whether it was a title or appellation attached to
his name in his life-time or after. From the tabular account
given below, ,n it will be evident that ‘Vyasadasa’ occurs along
with ‘Ksemendra’ in only 16.35 or 20.18 per cent of the
colophons bearing the poet’s name in the eighteen printed books
of Ksemendra. Thus, while in some of the colophons under
review the name Vyasadasa is solemnly pronounced, it is
conspicuous by its absence in quite a vast majority of them.
Further, there is noticeable a great irregularity or lack of
consistency in the manner the very name ‘Ksemendra’ is men¬
tioned in the several colophons. 14 Also, there are some coloph¬
ons which exhibit wide variation in the different editions. 15 Tn
view of this, we are led to believe that the colophons as they are
in the available works of Ksemendra are on the whole from
Vyasadasa—A Name
25
different pens and cannot with confidence be all assigned to
the author of these works, i.e., Ksemendra. Besides, the use
of such words as ‘Mahakavi’, ‘Vyasarupa\ etc., as in some
colophons , 16 stands by itself in opposition to any conjectured
probability of such colophons having been composed by Kse¬
mendra himself; for, the appellative words mentioned above,
if they are believed to have been used by the poet himself,
would obviously be redolent of sordid self-praise, and Ksemen¬
dra, by his very temperament which abhors vanity and all
sorts of human follies, would not certainly be indulging in any
such proud and naked self-edification. Dr. V. P. Mahajan,
however, seems to be of opinion that the colophons at the
end of Ksemendra’s works of which the general form, accord¬
ing to him is i “Iti Mahakavi-Sri-Vyasadasaparakhya-Ksemen-
dra-krto Granthah Samaptah”, were by Ksemendra himself . 17
Ksemendra, as Dr. Mahajan categorically remarks, “is very par¬
ticular in mentioning his titles .” 16 It is not known on what
grounds Dr. Mahajan’s contention or impression is based. No
argument in support has been adduced by him. Nothing has
either been said against the conceivable grounds for challenging
his opinion. Hence, we find yet no reason to revise our
conclusion as already arrived at in respect of the authorship
of the colophons of Ksemendra’s works. Since we do not
suppose that the colophons were all by Ksemendra himself,
we cannot on the basis of these colophons only, give any
definite reply to the question as to whether the name under
discussion, i.e., ‘Vyasadasa’, was assumed and used by the
poet himself, or whether it was a title acquired by him during
his life-time or after.
In the present context, it would be rather relieving to
note that the name ‘Vyasadasa’ occurs not only in some of the
colophons of Ksemendra’s works, but in the very body of some
of the poet’s works, too. The last verse of the Carucarya,”
the third among the concluding verses of the Aucityavicara-
carca , 20 the thirteenth verse of the first chapter of the Dasavata-
racarita , 21 and the initial verse of the Nitikalpataru 22 mention
Ksemendra as Vyasadasa. Again, the last verse of the last
chapter of the Dasavataracarita 26 mentions Vyasadasa as a
26
Ksemendra
name (abhidha, or abhidhana) of Ksemendra. Of these verses,
the initial verse of the Nitikalpataru reads very much like a
statement by some later author who presumably edited and
enlarged the original text of Ksemendra’s Nitikalpataru and
gave the book its present shape and character. 24 This verse,
therefore, forfeits its claim to engage our serious attention in
so far as it lacks the impress of Ksemendra’s authorship and
thus fails to throw any light on the question as to whether
the name ‘Vyasadasa’ was used by the poet himself. But, the
other four verses mentioned above, which are no doubt by
Ksemendra himself, may be accepted as constituting a valid
source wherefrom we may be permitted to conclude that the
name ‘Vyasadasa’, whether it was adopted or acquired by
Ksemendra. was used with a sense of profound gratification
by the poet himself-' and was not one thrust upon his original
name without his awareness or concern, or after his demise.
The question that still persists is: Was ‘Vyasadasa’ a
name adopted by Ksemendra or acquired by him ? Sylvain
Le'vi thinks that the name was adopted by the poet himeslf. 26
This name had been carried before by the most famous autho¬
rity of the Vaikhanasa creed. 27 The doctrine of the Vaikhanasas
touches so nearly the Bhagavatas that Wilson did not attempt
to mark the difference; the only trait peculiar to this sect
is the special adoration of Narayana. 28 Ksemendra who con¬
verted himself to Vaisnavism and accepted the doctrine of the
Bhagavatas speaks of himself as a fervent devotee of Narayana. 29
The name of Vyasadasa adopted by the poet, as Le'vi contends,
would be thus more a symbol of the Vaikhanasa faith than a
literary title boastful and vague. I.e'vi’s contention is open to
the following objections :
1. Ksemendra no doubt embraced Vaisnavism and accep¬
ted the Bhagavata creed which is akin to the Vai¬
khanasa faith. But. Ksemendra never betrays any
bias in matters of religious faith or philosophy. He
had indeed a religious bent of mind, but he was
above religious sectarianism. In view of this, it would
Vyasadasa—A Name
27
be difficult to explain how Ksemendra could have any
urge to adopt the name of a person who was known
to be an authority in some particular religious doc¬
trine, and thereby to pledge his staunch adherence
exclusively to that doctrine.
The name of Vyasadasa of the Vaikhanasa sect is
associated with that of the great Advaita philosopher,
Saftkara who, as the Sahkaravijaya depicts to us. had
vanquished Vyasadasa in a doctrinal debate. It is
strange indeed that in spite of this much-too-curr.ent
strory of Vyasadasa’s defeat, Ksemendra preferred to
adopt his (VySsadasa’s) name to indicate his special
and personal devotion to the particular sect championed
by Vyasadasa. It seems further strange that, having
adopted for himself the name of this religious per¬
sonality, recording thereby his particular allegiance
to his sect, the hard-working Ksemendra did not make
any effort, academic or otherwise, in the direction of
pursuing, explaining or propounding the doctrine for
which Vyasadasa stood.
3. It seems rather unusual that Ksemendra who had the
true modesty and politeness of a real devotee could
deem it proper to designate himself by the name of
a celebrated authority and thereby necessarily to seek
to figure as a man of distinct status and importance.
4. As a literary title, unlike ‘Srikantha’, 80 ‘Nava-Kali-
dasa’. 81 ‘Abhinava-Kalidasa’, 32 ‘Abhinava-Bhavabhuti Y 1,
‘Abhinava-Vyasa’, 84 ‘Vyasasri’ 85 and many other such
names, 36 the term ‘Vyasadasa’ is anything but boast¬
ful. It is neither vague. On the contrary, it is a
word genuinely expressive of the poet’s holy spirit of
humble submission and unalloyed modesty; in its
literal sense it rightlv describes the poet as the servant
or disciple of Vyasa. In an introductory verse of
Lokaprakasa. Ksemendra is introduced expressly as
28
Ksemendra
Vyasas disciple.Dr. Buhler also takes the name
‘Vyasadasa’ as a significant word meaning ‘pupil of
Vyasa’, 38 or ‘servant of Vyasa’. 39
Dr. Suryakanta thinks that the title ‘Vyasadasa’ was
acquired by Ksemendra ‘only when he had written the Bhara¬
tamanjari’. 40 He thus considers the name to be a literary title
which Ksemendra obtained as a mark of recognition of the
literary services he had rendered by epitomising VySsa’s Mahi-
bharata. The validity of this supposition cannot be vouchsafed
unless at least it is proved that (i) the Bharatamanjari had
been composed before all the other books of Ksemendra con¬
taining the name Vyasadasa (either in the colophons or in
the body of the books) were composed, and that (ii) the
colophons of Ksemendra’s works are a part and parcel of
the poet’s own composition and were not of a later date or
from different pens. As regards (i), it must be noted, although
the chronological lists of Ksemendra’s works as given by different
scholars have all assigned the Bharatamanjari along with the
other two Maiijaris to the earliest period of the poet’s literary
career, yet those scholars are not unanimous in placing the
Bharatamanjari at a date earlier than eithe- the Brhatkatha-
maiijari or the Ramayanamaiijari. Thus, according to both
Pt. Madhusudan Kaul Shastri 41 and Dr. V. P. Mahajan, 42 the
Bharatamanjari is posterior to the Brhatkathamaiijari; and the
Brhatkathamaiijari, as we know, contains the name ‘Vyasadasa’
in the colophon at the end of the book. But, according to
the chronology of Ksemendra’s works as reconstructed by
Dr. Suryakanta, 43 the Bharatamanjari is posterior only to the
Ramayanamanjari and is thus the earliest known work of
Ksemendra having the name ‘Vyasadasa’ recorded in its colo¬
phon. This, therefore, constitutes a controversial issue which
it is not easy to solve. As regards (ii) > we have already regis¬
tered our arguments against ascription of all the colophons of
Ksemendra’s works to Ksemendra himself. Put to such a
state of uncertainty regarding the authorship and the time of
composition of the several colophons, we cannot possibly use
them in favour of Dr. Suryakanta’s view, without running the
risk of falling into error. There is still another point to be
Vyasadasa—A N nme
29
noted in the present context, which is as follows. Even if the
last colophon of the Bharatamanjari, where the name ‘Vyasa¬
dasa’ occurs, is accepted as from Ksemendra’s pen, it would
not of necessity indicate that the poet acquired the name
‘Vyasadasa’ only when he had written the Bharatamanjari, but
would rather suggest that Ksemendra had already the name
‘Vyasadasa’ before ; or, it must be said, he acquired it at least
some time after he had completed the work and become famous.
Dr. Suryakanta’s opinion as stated above needs reconsideration
in the light of the following facts and reasons, too. We know
of several poets who acquired titles of honour framed and
granted by their admirers. Poet Ratnakara, for example, as
is generally believed, got the title ‘Vidyadhipati.’ 44 A poet ori¬
ginally known as Sivabhaktadasa was given the title ‘Utprek-
saballabha’ ; 4R the same title was also conferred on a poet
named Gokula for his excellent poetry. 46 These titles are ex¬
pressly eulogistic and are really titles of honour, such as may
normally be awarded to poets by their admirers. But the
word ‘Vyasadasa’ looks more like a benedictory, auspicious
name than like a laudatory title. If it were really an acquisi¬
tion by the poet for his literary success, it would not possibly
have been left unnoticed at least by Ksemendra’s son, Somen-
dra, who has given us a pretty long account of his father’s
life and literary achievements. 47 As we know, Ksemendra
himself notes the name ‘Vyasadasa’ very sparingly in his works
(colophons excepted). Had it been a regular title acquired
by him, he would possibly have taken care to mention it in
a greater number of cases, at least in the autobiographical
accounts left by him, for although Ksemendra was modest
by nature, he was by no means shy. Though Ksemendra does
not appear to be very much enthusiastic over this name as
a title of honour, he is no doubt intensely conscious of the
sanctity about it. 48 It appears that Ksemendra is intent on
cherishing this name not as any proud acquisition earned by
literary performances but as a fond sacred expression embody¬
ing his devotion to Vyasa and the solemn mission of his life
to serve the cause of service to humanity on the lines of the
great sage and savant, the renowned compiler of the Maha-
bharata. His devotion to Vyasa is amply revealed in his
30
Ksemendra
works, 49 and his mission to live up to the standard of service
set by Vyasa is evident from the nature and extent of his
literature and the prevailing tone and spirit of his literar/
productions.
In view of all this, we may conclude that ‘Vyasadasa’ as a
name of Ksemendra is neither a symbol of any religious
faith nor a title of honour acquired by the poet for his literary
merits, but a name auspicious and benedictory, fondly cheri¬
shed by him throughout his life, whether it was conferred on
him by some friend, relation or preceptor of his or adopted inde¬
pendently by the poet for himself just for the sake of recording
his supreme devotion to Vyasa as the beau ideal of his life.
From the above, it may be supposed that ‘Vyasadasa’ was
originally a connotative expression attached to the poet’s ori¬
ginal name. This is also evident from the manner the word
is connected with the name ‘Ksemendra’ in the last verse of
Carucarya and the first verse of Nltikalpataru. It is perhaps
in a qualifying sense that ‘Vyasadasa’ is coupled with ‘Kse¬
mendra’, when the poet is called Ksemendra Vyasadasa by
Macdonell, 50 Duff 51 and others. Dr. Mahajan calls the poet
Vyasadasa Ksemendra, using an expression where ‘Vyasadasa’
is obviously used to qualify ‘Ksemendra’ and to distinguish the
poet from other Ksemendras. In course of time, as is but
natural, the word ‘Vyasadasa’ gradually came to be recognised
as a separate and indenendent name of the poet. Thus it is
not, as Buhler, Le'vi, De, Krishnamachariar and many others
think ti to be, a surname (upanaman) of Ksemendra. It is, in
fact, as is also expressly stated in the colophons of Ksemendra’s
works and elsewhere, the apcirariaman, i.e., the second or
secondary name of the poet. In the Catalogus Catalogorum,
Dr. Aufrecht notes the name of Ksemendra thus : “Ksemen¬
dra also Vyasadasa” 53 Dr. Mahajan, in the Introduction to his
edition of the Nltikalpataru, notes the poet’s name in a similar
fashion : “Ksemendra alias Vyasadasa”. 54 In the Introduction
to the Suktimuktavali edited bv Embar Krishnamacharya, there
is a similar statement which runs as follows : “Vyasadasa
Ityaparam Casya Nama”. The above authorities, therefore,
Vyasadasa—A Name
31
appear to have taken care to indicate Vyasadasa as the second
or secondary name of Ksemendra. It is noteworthy that in
Vallabhadeva’s Subhasitavall we have quotations from Ksemen¬
dra and Vyasadasa separately. It is not known whether the
compiler knew that ‘Vyasadasa’ was another name of Ksemen¬
dra. It is probable, as Prof. Peterson thinks, 54 that the
compiler quotes the two, ‘perhaps thinking them to be one,
perhaps, knowing them to be one’. 55 It may be mentioned in
this connection that the compiler in an identical manner quotes
Ratnakara and Vidyadhipati separately ; and these two names,
as we know, denote the same person, while the latter name
was originally a title acquired by Ratnakara. Whether we do
or do not believe in the possibility that the compiler, while
quoting Ksemendra and Vyasadasa separately, was fully aware
that these two names meant the same man, it is indeed too
clear a fact to be ignored or questioned that ‘Vyasadasa’ as
a name gained as much currency and popularity as the original
name of the poet, i.e. ? ‘Ksemendra’.
In conclusion, it must be pointed out that ‘Vyasadasa’
was perhaps not the only other name of Ksemendra. In the
last verse of the last chapter of Dasavataracarita Ksemendra
refers to himself as ‘Sri-Vyasadasanyatamabhidha (—bhidhana)’.
The word ‘anyatama’ in the above expression is significant;
it means ‘one of many’, so that, on his own admission, Ksemen¬
dra had at least one other secondary name in addition to
‘Vyasadasa’. If, however, he had only two names altogether
including the name ‘Ksemendra’, he could certainly have used,
without prejudice to the metrical order, the word ‘anyatara’
instead of ‘anyatama’ in the expression under reference. Of
course, it must be confessed, we are still unaware of any other
additional name than ‘Vyasadasa’. which the poet had probably
possessed.
Chapter Three
HIS DATE, CAREER AND HOME
It is indeed unfortunate that what fragments are still
preserved for us of the vast lore of the Indian genius, which
profusely expressed itself through the ages in myriad-fold works
of art, literature and philosophy, do not for the most part of
them provide any austensible account about the life and per¬
sonality of their great authors. Scores of Indian savants of
far-spread repute are thus unfortunately mostly dream-land
figures to us. This is a fact which invariably confronts and
very often frustrates our attempt by the application of the
modern method of criticism to make a scientific estimate of
our proud heritage. The silence of most of our Indian writers
about themselves and of critics and commentators about their
authors’ life and personality betrays no doubt a lack of interest
on their part in matters of chronology and biographical account,
which, whatever the reasons, seems to characterise the ancient
Indian mind as a whole. It is, however^ a curious phenomenon
which has seized the attention of Orientologists that in sharp
contradistinction to this apparent indifference of the ancient
Indian people in general to History in a strictly modern sense
of the term, there can be noticed in the land of Kashmir a
traditional love for matters of history as such, and other things
of kindred nature. It is evidently a cognizance, peculiar to
the Kashmirian genius, of the importance of historical outlook
and equipment in understanding a* country and its culture,
that not only brought forth a series of Chroniclers even before
Kalhana, but also, if we are permitted so to presume, prompted
the Kashmirian savants as a class to record in most of their
compositions at least some useful information regarding them¬
selves. 1 It is significant that even a profound philosopher and
devout Yogin of Abhinavagupta’s stature did not avoid affording
valuable autobiographical notes for his readers. 2 Our poet
Ksemendra also “was not a man to hide his light under a
Date t Career and Home
33
bushel, and he has taken care to let us know a good deal
about himself and his time”. 3 Useful information regarding
the life and parentage of our great author is also available in
his son Somendra’s account in the Avadanakalpalata. With
the help of these materials, in particular, it has been possible
for us to prepare a brief but faithful sketch of Ksemendra’s
life and presonality.
Ksemendra had long been enshrined in darkness figuring
in the domain of literature as a name only until in 1871
Burnell announced his discovery in the palace of Tanjore of
a manuscript of the Brhatkathamanjari of Ksemendra. 4 A
series of uninterrupted discoveries that followed allowed scholars
for the first time to restore the man and the poet. Immediate¬
ly after Burnell, Dr. G. Biihler discovered another manuscript
of the Brhatkathamanjari in Gujarat 5 , and the following
year he published his article entitled “On the V(B?)rhatkatha
of Kshemendra” 6 containing his remarks and hypothesis on the
author and his date. The following extract 7 from Buhler’s
article embodies the beginning of search for ascertaining the
period of Ksemendra’s life and literary activity :
“Though Kshemendra is fuller in his statements about
himself than Sanskrit poets usually are, still it is difficult
to fix his age even approximately. His V(B?) rhatkatha
is quoted in Dhanika’s commentary on the Mudrarakshasa.
If we could trust the quotation in Dhanika’s Avaloka,
we should obtain a respectable age for Kshemendra. For,
as Dhanika lived under Munja, it would follow that
Kshemendra lived not later than in the beginning of the
10th century. But unfortunately, the passage of the
Avaloka in which the quotation occurs, is given by only
one of Dr. Hall’s MSS. The other two omit these verses.
It may therefore be an interpolation. The quotation by
Dhundhiraja and another in Sarrigadharapaddhati do not
carry us beyond the 14th century. None of the personages
mentioned by Kshemendra are known except his teacher
Abhinavagupta. The latter is cited as an authority on
Alankara by Mallinatha and Mammata and Sarfigadeva.
3
34
Ksemendra
He therefore appears to have been known in the 12th
century.”
The above extract obviously presents a vain but honest
attempt by Biihler to determine the age of Ksemendra. With
the scanty information which the learned scholar had at his
disposal at the time of writing the abovementioned article,
it was evidently not possible for him to get at a more exact
and accurate hypothesis regarding the poet’s age than to place
him somewhere within a range of about two centuries from
about the beginning of the 10th to the 12th century. A few
years after, and finally in the year 1877 A.D., when some
more works of Ksemendra, Abhinava and other scholars had
been discovered removing to a great extent the cover of dark¬
ness looming large until then over the history of our poet,
Biihler was able to declare that Ksemendra lived in the 11th
century A.D. 8 Le'vi in 1885 expressed the same opinion. 9
Peterson in 1886 pronounced his agreement with Buhler. 10
S. C. Das in 1888 observed : “According to them 11 Ksemendra
lived in the beginning of the 11th century A.D., when Kashmir
was ruled by King Ananta Deva”. 12 All other scholars have
subscribed to this view. 13
Pt. Madhusiidan Kaul Shastri opines that Ksemendra was
born after 990 A.D. and died after 1065 A.D. 14 Dr. Surya-
kanta suggesting a lower limit for each likes to fix the date
of his birth somewhere between 990 A.D. and 1010 A.D. 15
and the date of his death between 1065 A.D. and 1070 A.D. 16
Dr. P. L. Vaidya says : “Dr. Suryakanta thinks that Ksemendra
may have been born about A.D 990—1000. 17 Although the
above statement does not give exactly Dr. Suryakanta’s view
on the point in question, yet it seems that Dr. Vaidya is inclined
to place the date of Ksemendra’s birth somewhere between
990 A.D. and 1000 A.D., on a supposed authority of Surya¬
kanta. According to Dr.* Vaidya, “it is also likely that Ksemen¬
dra may have died soon after A.D. 1066.” 18 According to
Dr. V. P. Mahajan, Ksemendra’s life extended from 990 A.D.
to 1070 A.D. approximately. 19 In the opinion of Dr. A.
Sharma,’ again, Ksemendra may be assigned roughly to the first
Date f Career and Home
35
quarter of the 11th century and his career to the second and the
third quarter of the 11th century. 20 All these scholars, there¬
fore, though not precisely definite or exactly identical in their
views regarding the dates of Ksemendra’s birth and death,
have nevertheless been able to postulate a hypothesis confining
Ksemendra’s span of life within the limits of the last decade of
the 10th and the close of the third quarter of the 11th century.
As for the date of Ksemendra’s birth, some scholars have
found it convenient to base their conjecture on an internal
evidence, i.e. ? on a verse by the poet himself, which reads as
follows :
Srutvabhinavaguptakhyat
Sahityam Bodha-varidheh /
Acaryasekharamaner-
Vidya-vivrti-karinah / /
The above verse occurs in the Brhatkathamanjari 21 and, with
the halves transposed, in the Bhiratamanjari 22 also. Pt. Kaul
who seems to be a pioneer in the matter of making a drive
towards marking with exactitude the limits of Ksemendra’s
life arrives at his conclusion regarding the date of the poet’s
birth in the following manner and on the basis of the above-
quoted verse which he interprets thus :
“Kshemendra in his Bharatamanjarl says that he studied
Sahitya with Abhinavagupta, author of the Vidyavivriti
or the Pratyabhijna-vrihatl-vimarsini. Abhinavagupta wrote
his bigger commentary on the Pratyabhijna Darsana in
1014 A.D. To consider Kshemendra fit enough for stu¬
dying and not reading merely the science of Rhetoric with
Abhinavagupta and to have general acquaintance with the
literature of the day, it is reasonable to conjecture that
Kshemendra might have been by that time about 25 years
old. On the above hypothesis and the supposition that
he studied with Abhinavagupta just after the latter com¬
pleted his Vidyavivriti, the lowest limit for the date of
Kshemendra’s birth must be found somewhere after 990
A.D.” 23
36
Ksemendra
Kaul’s contention, as is but obvious, hinges primarily on
the meaning assigned by him to the word ‘Vidya-vivrti’ occur¬
ring in the verse quoted above. He has taken the word to
mean Abhinavagupta’s work, Isvara-pratyabhijna-brhati-vimar-
sini, also called Isvara-pratyabhijna-vivrti-vimarsinI, a commen¬
tary on Utpala’s own Vivrti on his Isvara-pratyabhijna. But
no evidence has been adduced by Kaul in support of the mean¬
ing assigned by him to the word ‘Vidya-vivrti’. It is to be
noticed that both Dr. Suryakanta 24 and Dr. Mahajan 25 have
similarly meant the same thing by the word in question, with¬
out mentioning the source wherefrom they might have derived
the said meaning. It is not unlikely that they followed Pt.
Kaul and simply repeated Kaul’s belief as their own. Whatever
that might be, it is rather strange how, when and whence the
bigger commentary by Abhinavagupta on Utpala’s own Vivrti
on fsvarapratyabhijna came to be known as ‘Vidya-vivrti’. We
must confess that no indication could be gathered anywhere,
whereby we might be obliged to agree with Pt. Kaul, Dr. Surya¬
kanta and Dr. Mahajan in accepting the denotation which they
have assigned, apparently in a spirit of profound confidence,
to the word ‘Vidya-vivrti’ occurring in the verse under dis¬
cussion. Nor is it known if there was any other work by
Abhinava, which had the name ‘Vidva-vivrti’. In the present
state of our knowledge, therefore, we cannot help standing
apart from the abovenamed scholars and maintaining that
the meaning which has been assigned by them to the word
‘Vidya-vivrti’ is hardly tenable. The following considerations
also constitute a potent obstacle to the supposition in favour
of assigning to the word ‘Vidya-vivrti’ the denotation of ‘Abhi¬
navagupta’s Isvara^pratyabhijna-brati (vivrti)-vimarsini’ :
(1) It is not understood why Ksemendra, while naming
Abhinavagupta as his teacher in literature would
refrain from referring to his teacher’s famous
achievements in literature, and prefer, on the con¬
trary, to pronounce rather incosistently only the
name of one of his philosophical works. Abhinava¬
gupta, as we know, has to his credit epoch-making
works in Poetics and Dramaturgy. His Kavya-
Date t Career and Home
37
kautukavivarana, Dhvanyalokalocana and Abhinava-
bharati have decidedly earned him a fame that will
never die. These three works had been composed
by Abhinava long before he wrote his Pratyabhijna-
brhati (vivrti)-vimarsinl which work probably be¬
longs to the third and last period of his literary
activity and is considered to be the penultimate
of his known works. If, therefore, according to
the interpretation of Pt. Kaul and others, as already
mentioned, Ksemendra read Sahitya with Abhinava
after the latter had composed the Pratyabhijna-
brhatl (vivrti)-vimarsinl. he (i.e. Ksemendra), it
must be admitted, was certainly at that time in
the know of Abhinavagupta’s works in Sahitya as
mentioned above. Hence, there is no excuse which
can be offered to explain Ksemendra’s silence on
these literary works vis-a'-vis his eloquence in men¬
tioning specifically, as Pt. Kaul and others think
he has done, a particular philosophical work of
his teacher in literature, except that Ksemendra .
was careless and capricious having little regard for
the value of propriety and relevancy even while
recording an important information, but which, we
must opine, does not seem to be an acceptable
proposition.
(2) What interested Ksemendra was literature and no
other philosophy than the philosophy of Poetics.
This is but evident from the nature and the volume
of his whole life’s output, as also from the fact that
he read Sahitya and probably no other subject
with Abhinava, although the latter was a past
master in Darsana as well. Having, as he did,
manifestly no personal interest in or access to the
philosophical studies in which Abhinavagupta re¬
velled, Ksemendra could normally have no urge
to mention a philosophical treatise only to the
credit of his teacher.
38
Ksemendra
(3) It cannot be argued that the supposed mention by
Ksemendra of the Pratyabhijna-brhati (vivrti)-
vimarsini in the verse under discussion is amply
justified in being consistent with the sense of
reverence which Ksemendra obviously seeks to re¬
veal there for Abhinavagupta whom he describes
as ‘the Ocean of wisdom’ (bodha-varidhi) and ‘the
crest-gem of teachers’ (acarya-sekhara-mani) ; for,
the commentary in question, though undoubtedly a
very important work, is not, either by itself or
as a representative work, the only book to which
Abhinavagupta owes the respect due to him. This
work is just one of the many works dealing with
diverse subjects which have collectively given
Abhinava his full weight and dimension deserving
of such admiration as is couched in Ksemendra’s
expressions of reverence noted above. If Ksemen¬
dra had intended to indicate the depth and width
of Abhinavagupta’s learning by referring to his
contributions, he would not have mentioned the
name of only one of his many works but would
at least have left along with it some indication
to show that the great scholar had written many
other works also.
(4) In the opinion of Dr. Pandey, Abhinavagupta lived
from about the middle of the 10th century to
about the close of the first quarter of the 11th
century A.D 20 The period of Abhinava’s literary
activity, according to Pandey, extended from 990-1
A.D. to 1014-15 A.D. 27 Suryakanta agrees with
Pandey on this point. 28 According to Wintemitz 29
and Kane, 30 however, Abhinava’s career covered
the period from about 980 to about 1020 A.D.
As we are told, ‘the Pratyabhijna-vimarsini is the
penultimate of Abhinava’s known works. There
is only one work ? namely, the Isvara-pratyabhijna-
vimarsini, which, on the authority of the Bhaskari,
we know for certain to be posterior to it. How many
Date f Career and Home
39
more works he wrote thereafter, whether he wrote
any at all, we have at present no authority to
say. 31 It is probable, therefore, that Abhinava
composed his Pratyabhijna-brhatl (vivrti)-vimar-
sini not long before 1015 or 1020 A.D. If the
word ‘Vidya-vivrti’ is taken to mean the work just
mentioned, the verse under discussion would nece¬
ssarily lead us to suppose that Ksemendra studied
Sahitya under Abhinava after the latter had com¬
pleted the said work some time about 1015 or 1020
A.D. Thus, as Dr. Kane also believes, 32 Ksemen-
dra’s contact with Abhinava, in the light of the
above supposition, must have been towards the
close of the latter’s life. But, in the closing years
of his career, Abhinava is believed to have con¬
centrated his energy on philosophy and spiritualism.
So it is rather difficult to give full credence to the
supposed probability that Abhinava had been a
teacher of Sahitya also till the close of his long
life and had the time and opportunity to impart
an effective education in the subject to the young
Ksemendra so that the latter remembered it even
long after and recorded his deep appreciation of
his master in the manner he has done in the verse
in question.
In view of the above, we cannot accept the meaning that
has been assigned to the word ‘Vidya-vivrti’ by Pt. Kaul,
Dr. Suryakanta and Dr. Mahajan. With the basis of their
argument thus put to question, their conclusion in respect
of Ksemendra’s date of birth, which is founded on the
said argument, necessarily becomes a matter of doubt and
uncertainty. Further, the presumption that Ksemendra might
have been about twenty-five years of age and was neither
much younger nor much older when he studied Rhetoric
with Abhinavagupta cannot be regarded as sufficiently strong
and valid so as to permit a vital consideration like the one in
question. It may be pointed out in this connection that Dr.
Suryakanta, while proposing his agreement with Pt. Kaul
40
Ksemendra
regarding the latter’s grounds and mode of argument as discussed
words'• ° “To^all a . C ° nfuS ' ng statement >n the following
' J? ' 3 penod lon g enough for the poet to be
able to study rhetoric and have general acquaintance with the
that ic Un \ WC may - with Mr - Madhusudan Kaul say
hat he was nearly twenty-five years of age, when he wrote
the Brhatkathamanjari.” 33 I n fact, according to Pt Kaul -,s
we have already noticed, Ksemendra might have been twenty
fiv yean, old when he studied Rhetoric with Abhinava^tpa •
but. Kaul does say anything clearly about , he ^
«ge at the time of his writing the Brhatkathamanjari He is
tollv e the°L? Pi f " i 7 ,ha a ,he Brhat “*">a*iart is chronolo-
gically the first of Ksemendra s known works and is the product
his period of literary apprenticeship which begins just after
completion of his higher studies with Abhinavagupta. Pt Kaul
again, believes that Ksemendra studied under AbhinavaS
opine° U wi- fi A h ThC Brhatkath5ma "j ar '. as some scholars
opine was finished in 1037 A.D. So. ultimatelv. we
come to this that Ksemendra’s period of apprenticeship
imT aVT ,° r f , 7 ab ° A Ut tWen,y ' tW0 vears ffrom about
. ’ ° j 037 AD ) and that it took the poet
But th" quarter of a centurv to produce the Brhatkathamanjari.
But this obviously forfeits its minimum claim to be treated as
^ Pr " V,S '° na aSSUm ftion. Switching over to Dr. Siiryakanta’s
statement as quoted above, we find that it also constitutes
self-contradiction ; for, in the statement just previous to it,
. Survakanta, following his interpretation of the word ‘Vidya-
vivrt. m the verse discussed above and noting the date of
composition of the BrhatkathSmanjari. remarks that “Ksemen¬
dra studied under Abhinavagupta after or about 1014 A.D. and
one before his Brhatkathamanjari was written”. 34 Dr Maha-
tan has taken note of the fact that according to Dr.Suryakanta
2 u- S tWCnty - five years of a §e when he composed
the Brhatkathamanjari. and has said that this places the date
of the poets birth at about 1010 A.D. 35 In fact, according to
r Suryakantas statement as reviewed above, Ksemendra’s
date of birth is to be placed at about 990 A.D or 1012
the . da,e 0f his the composition
of the Brhatkathamanjari or that of his finishing the work is
Date , Career and Home
41
taken to be the point of time when, according to the learned
scholar, the poet might have been about twenty five years of age.
In our opinion, the word ‘Vidya-vivrtikarinah’ as it occurs
in the verse under discussion should preferably be taken in its
literal sense. We may take ‘Vidya’ to mean knowledge or
learning in general and ‘vivrti’ the act of expounding and
explaining it. The word, as referring to Abhinavagupta, would
then be an appropriate epithet rightly describing him as the
expounder of the various branches of learning. This meaning
would also fit in perfectly well with Ksemendra’s spirit of reve¬
rence as manifest in the verse in question for Abhinava as a
sound all-round scholar and teacher.
The above meaning accepted, there remains no solid ground
for determining the exact period when Ksemendra might have
studied under Abhinavaguota. Whether the period is between
1014 and 1020 A.D. or between 1001 and 1014 A.D., or
whether it may be assigned to a still earlier date is a question
upon which the final word cannot be said from any direct
evidence in the present state of our knowledge. Hence, the
date of Ksemendra’s birth cannot also be affirmed merely on
the evidence as contained in the verse in question of K c emen-
dra’s association as a student with Abhinavagupta. It would
oerhaDS not be quite an illegitimate supposition if we think
that Ksemendra read Sahitya with Abhinava sometime in the
beginning of the 11th century A.D.. say. about 1010 A.D.,
when the latter had already established his reputation as an
authority in Sahitya. On the above supposition the date of
Ksemendra’s birth may be placed somewhere about the last
decade of the 10th century A.D. From this, again, it will
follow that Ksemendra died at a ripe old age of about eighty,
for we may be permitted to assume that Ksemendra died about
1070 A.D. and did not live long after 1065-6 A.D., the date
of completion of his last known work, the Dasavataracarita.
To push the hvDothetical date of Ksemendra’s death further
down beyond 1070 A.D. would only mean a longer period of
intellectual prostration for Ksemendra. which we are loath to
acknowledge on the presumption that a zealous and indus-
42
Ksemendra
trious poet which Ksemendra evidently was could not possibly
have a prolonged existence completely dark and abortive. If
we are allowed to suppose that Ksemendra died an octogene-
rian about the. year 1070 A.D., the date of his birth may be
placed at about 990 A.D. To push the hypothetical date of
his birth further up would in that case mean for the poet
a period of more than four score years of life, which is
admittedly a very rare phenomenon especially with hardwork¬
ing intellectuals. Further, if we place the date of his birth
at a time considerably earlier than 990 A.D., say, at about
980 A.D., it would mean that Ksemendra composed his Dasa-
vataracarita at the age of about eighty-six and the Carucarya-
sataka, chronologically posterior, according to Pt. Kaul, to the
Dasavataracarita, when he was still older. The scheme and
the manner of execution of these works bear clear stamp of
unimpaired mental freshness, vigour and vivacity of idea and
imagination. But, such a thing is rarely co-existent with an
age verging on ninety. Besides, if it is supposed that Kse¬
mendra was bom at about 980 A.D. and that the ambitious
poet started his literary career right in the beginning of the
llh century when he must have been over twenty years of
age, it must be acknowledged that an unusually long period
had since elapsed before Ksemendra finished his Brhatkatha-
maiijarl in 1037 A.D., and in that case, it would be a problem
for us to explain why the industrious poet in this long span
could not yield more than what has been assigned by scholars
to the period in question. Viewing the issue from the above
angles, it appears to be well nigh binding upon us not to
assign the date of his birth to a time much earlier than 990
A.D. Again, if we assume that Ksemendra was bom about
the close of the 10th century, i.e., at about 1000 A.D., we
would invariably find ourselves confronted with the question
of material validity in respect of the inevitable deduc¬
tion that Ksemendra studied Sahitva under Abhinava, while
the poet was yet within his teens, if not younger still, and no
normal judgment would guarantee the material legitimacv of
such deduction. In this connection it may be pointed out
that Dr. Suryakanta who proposes to place the date of Kse-
mendra’s birth somewhere between 990 A.D. and 1010 A.D.
Date f Career and Home
43
apparently fixes the lower limit for the date at 1010 A.D. ;
but to maintain that Ksemendra was bom about 1010 A.D.
is tantamount to admitting that the poet studied under Abhi-
nava when he was a mere child, but that would be
almost an absurdity. Thus Ksemendra’s birth cannot be as¬
signed to a date much later than 990 A.D.
Hence, to conclude, Ksemendra seems to have been born
neither much earlier nor much later than 990 A.D., and this
date, i.e., 990 A.D. may, therefore, provisionally be supposed
to be the approximate date of Ksemendra’s birth, until concrete
evidence is available either to corroborate or to contradict it.
We feel happy that inspite of our difference as stated above
from Pt. Kaul and others regarding the mode of argument
followed and the interpretation of the evidence utilised in
determining the date of Ksemendra, we have arrived at a date
generally agreed upon by all of these learned scholars.
Although Dr. Buhler originally believed that Ksemendra
wrote from 1020 to 1040 A.D., 36 he subsequently maintained
that the poet’s literary activity lay in the second and the third
quarter of the eleventh century. 37 Prof. Peterson, on the
authority of Dr. Buhler’s revised opinion, holds the same
view. 88 The opinion has received the concurrence of Dr.
Suryakanta 39 and Dr. A. Sarma 40 also. Dr. Suryakanta, how¬
ever, on the evidence of the earliest and the latest date in
Ksemendra’s works is more specific on this point, for he says :
“.the period of his literary activity falls roughly between
1037 and 1066 A.D.” 41
Pt. Kaul observes : “His literary career, so far
as his mention of King Ananta Deva is concerned,
begins from before the reign of Ananta Deva (1028
A.D.)”. 42 According to Sylvain Le'vi, 43 Ksemendra’s literary
career began under the rule of Ananta, was prolonged and
came to an end under his son Kalasa, so that, in the opinion
of the learned scholar, Ksemendra started his literary career
44
Ksemendra
not earlier than 1028 A.D., the date of Ananta’s installation
to the throne. Although in one place 44 Dr. Kane says that
Ksemendra’s literary activity falls in the second and the third
quarter of the 11 th century, he elsewhere 45 specifically gives
the dates 1030 and 1070 A.D. as the terminii of the poet’s
literary career. Dr. Mahajan opines that the period of Kse¬
mendra’s literary activity lies between 1010 and 1066 A.D.,
and the beginning of his career between 1010 and 1015 A.D.. 46 .
As discussed already by us, Ksemendra did not perhaps
live long after 1066 A.D.. and his death which probably
occurred about 1070 A.D., gives the terminus ad quern for
Ksemendra’s literary career. The beginning of his career as
a full-fledged student of literature may be assigned to the first
decade of the 11th century. It may be supposed that Ks-
mendra was a student under Abhinava at about 1010 A.D.
when the former probably was a pretty young man of about
twenty and the latter, ripe with age and wisdom, had already
established himself as an authority in Sahitya and was far
high in the ascending scale of his glory as a teacher and a
versatile scholar. It may also legitimately be supposed that
Ksemendra’s active literary life started soon after, if not simul¬
taneously with, his career as a student under Abhinava. As
Pt. Kaul says, “the period of his apprenticeship begins just
after he completed his course of higher studies under Abhi-
navagupta.” 47 As is evident from the record of his contri¬
butions to literature, Poet Ksemendra was by no means an
upstart, nor was his culture of Poetry the product of a sudden
feat of emotion; Poetry was the mission of his life, not a
luxury or a pastime, and he apparently spared no pains to
cultivate it in its fullest possible form and spirit and to the
greatest benefit of his students and the people at large. Tt
would not, therefore, be proper to conjecture that Ksemendra
took to writing poetry at an advanced age and that the year
1037 A.D., the supposed date of completion of the Brhatka-
thamanjari, marks the beginning of his literary activity. The
Brhatkathamanjari with all the defects and limitations alleged
against it does not appear to be the work of a novice and
cannot be regarded as Ksemendra’s maiden work. Besides,
from a statement 48 in the Upasamhara of the said work, it
Date t Career ami Home
45
is crystal-clear that Ksemendra had been already famous as
a scholar and poet even before the Brhatkathamanjari was
composed. A word of caution is perhaps necessary against
such probable interpretation of the statement in question as
might wongly ascribe the said reputation of Ksemendra to
the Brhatkathamanjari itself and deny any earlier achievements
to the credit of the poet. The illegitimacy of the apprehended
interpretation as indicated above will be apparent from the
order and the contents of the individual verses of the Upasam-
hara where the statement occurs. The first five verses (i.e., nos.
31-35) give an account of Ksemendra’s father. In the verse
just following (i.e., no. 36) # Ksemendra introduces himself
as the son of his great father and as one who has earned
reputation among scholars and poets. In verse no. 37, the
poet recounts his association with Abhinava, his teacher in
Sahitya; and in verse no. 38, he speaks of Soma who is
supposed to have converted him to the Vaisnava Bhagavata
faith ; in the verses that follow he gives an account of the
context of composition of the Brhatkathamanjari. From the
above it appears that the completion of the Brhatkathamanjari
has no necessary bearing on Ksemendra’s earlier reputation
as a scholar and poet, which was apparently an accomplished
fact even before the composition of the said work was under¬
taken by him. According to Dr. Survakanta, “the Brhat¬
kathamanjari is definitely later than the other two Manjaris”. 49
This view accepted would evidently provide reasons of fact
corroborating our above contention which would otherwise
have to stand on purely formal reasoning. It may be noticed
in this connection that in the concluding portion of the Maha-
bharatamanjari. just following the Harivamsa, there is a
verse 50 almost identical to the one (v. 36) in the Upasam-
hara of the Brhatkathamanjari, as mentioned above, describing
Ksemendra as an established poet. Taking cognizance of all
this, we cannot but agree to allow the poet the adequate time
necessary for his attaining to the position of honour as referred
to above; and this supports our disinclination to accept the
supposition that Ksemendra’s literary activity began, as Dr.
Suryakanta thinks, as late as 1037 A.D., or, as Dr. Kane
believes, in the year 1030 A.D., or, again, as Prof. Le'vi
46
Ksemendra
opines, about 1028 A.D., at the earliest. We are inclined to
believe that Ksemendra’s activity in the field of literature had
been in process since a much earlier time. In view of this
and also of the supposed fact that Ksemendra, who was a
student under Abhinava probably about 1010 A.D., took
the earliest opportunity, after obtaining the preliminary acade¬
mic equipment, to throw himself into the task of actively
cultivating the literary art, we may fix the date of commence¬
ment of his literary activity near about 1015 A.D. and suppose
that Ksemendra’s emergence as a full-fledged poet probably
took place about 1020 A.D. and that his active literary career
extended up to a date not much later than 1066 A.D.
Bom in Kashmir, Ksemendra appears to have lived all
his life in the land of his birth—says Prof. Le'vi. 51 Dr. P. L.
Vaidya also expressly states that Kashmir is the birth-place
of Ksemendra. 52 Evidences are not rare to show that Ksemen¬
dra belonged to Kashmir, the land of his forefathers, and that
the scene of his literary activity lay in this beautiful Valley.
Although there is no positive evidence to prove the hypo¬
thesis that he was born in Kashmir or that he never went
abroad, the extreme likelihood of the first hypothesis cannot
be denied ; as regards the second one, nothing can be said
definitely. Pt. Kaul, however, is inclined to believe that ‘he
(Ksemendra) was a great traveller’. 53
Ksemendra was fully conscious of the grace and glory
of Kashmir. He pays tribute to his motherland in a verse
of the Narmamala, which is as follows :
Asti svastimatamagryarh
manditarh budhamandalaih /
Kh andi takh andalavlsa
-darpam Kasrmramandalam / / 54
[There is a mandala, called KasmTra, the foremost of
blessed places, which is graced by galaxies of wise
Date , Career and Home
47
men and which put down the pride of the abode of
Indra.]
Here we may also quote the following verses 55 embodying
the poet’s feeling of love and reverence for Kashmir :
Vitastetyasti tatini moksasriharavallari /
Ringat-taranga-bhrubhangaistarjayantiva kalmasam //
Tayasti 1 ol al ah arlksalyamanaraj ovraj am /
Kasmiramandalam nama mandalarh sarvasampadam //
Yasminnarikapolesu kantikallolitormisu /
Bimbagatah sasl dhatte sudhagarbhamukham punah //
Tiksnam tapati nosnarhiuh karaih kusumakomalaih /
Tvasp-eva yatra lavanyanavanltena nirmitah / /
Suktarpitaranat-taraharanupuramekhala /
Nrtyatlva kavindranam yatra vaktre Sarasvatl // 56
[There is a river, Vitasta by name, the necklace of
the goddess of the wealth of salvation, reproaching
the evil, as it were, by frowns in the form of rolling
waves.
There lies the mandala, called Kasmira, the repository
of all prosperity, having its multitude of dust washed
off by that (river) with her restless billowy waters.
There, reflected in the women’s cheeks with the surging
wave of grace gliding over, the moon puts up anew
its face laden with ambrosia.
There the hot-rayed (sun), with rays as tender as
flowers, manufactured, as it were, by Tvastr (the divine
artisan) with the butter of gracefulness, does not give
out scorching beams of light.
There does Sarasvatl play, as it were, in a dancing feat
in the mouth of eminent poets whose good sayings have
48
Ksemendra
provided her with pearl-necklace, anklet and girdle
emitting loud jingling sound.]
It may be mentioned in this connection that we have
hymns in praise of Kashmir from the pen of two other famous
poets of the Valley. These two poets are Bilhana and Kalhana.
Bilhana was a junior contemporary of Ksemendra and Kalhana
belonged to a much later date. Both these poets have extolled
Kashmir for its wealth of holy natural beauty, its material
prosperity and its exalted status in the field of letters as well
as for the exquisite^ charming qualities of its women-folk. 57
They have left for us a fairly elaborate resume' of the grace
and grandeur of their motherland, Kashmir. Ksemendra’s des¬
cription of Kashmir which comprises only a few verses occur¬
ring in different contexts is necessarily characterised by balance
and precision with the usual impassioned spirit of a hymnist
put under control ; but, nevertheless, it puts forth elegantly
most of the striking features of Kashmir acclaimed as well by
other poets ; and Ksemendra’s expressions of praise, though
brief and restrained, rightly bespeak the poet’s genuineness of
appreciation and a warm patriotic feeling which was evidently
ingrained in his character.
Mr. Nagendranath Vasu in his Visvakosa 38 says that
Ksemendra was born in Tripurasailasikhara of Kashmir; but
no source has been cited by Mr. Vasu for the information
given. Dr. K. C. Pandey writes : “Ksemendra states Tripure-
sasaila as his place of residence in one of the concluding
lines in his Mahabharata-Manjari :—‘Prakhyatatisayasya tasya
tanayah Ksemendra-nama-bhavat, Tena Sri-Tripuresasailasikhare
visrantisantosina’.” 39 It is to be noted that the above two feet
as quoted by Dr. Pandey are traceable not in the Mahabha-
ratamanjari but in the Dasavataracarita as available to us,
where they occur as the fourth foot of the second and the
first foot of the third concluding verse respectively. It is
perhaps on account of this mistake in tracing the source of
the extract in question that Dr. Pandey has been led to inter¬
pret the said extract to indicate that Tripuresasaila was Ksmen-
dra’s usual place of residence ; for, the Mahabharatamanjari
Date, Career arid Home
49
was one of the poet’s earliest compositions, and the mention
of Tripuresasaila as the place of composition of the said book
where the extract under reference is wrongly supposed to
occur would naturally suggest that the place in question had
been Ksemendra s usual place of residence since his very
early years. The Dasavataracarita where actually the above
extract appears to occur was, as we know, composed by
Ksemendra in his old age ; and in the verse containing the
extract in question the poet mentions Tripuresasaila as a place
where he had the pleasure of repose (visrantisantosina) at the
time of composition of the work. It appears, therefore, that
Tripuresasaila was a place where the poet spent the conclud¬
ing period of his life and enjoyed calm respite earned by years
of hard toil in the literary field. We have, in fact, no evi¬
dence to prove that Tripuresasaila was his birth-place or his
usual place of residence since the prime of his life. As regards
Ksemendra’s association with this place, Pt. Kaul observes :
“His death seems to have taken place after 1065 A.D., because
he retired from the world and probably lived in hermitage
and breathed his last there on the Tripuresa mountain where
he wrote the Dasavataracarita in the reign of Kalasa in the
Laukika year 4141 or 1065 A.D.” 60 The position of Tripuresa
(or Tripuresvara) can be fixed near the modern village of
Triphar, at a distance of about three miles from the Dal.
Tripuresvara is mentioned as a site of great sanctity by
Kalhana. It is referred to in the Nilamata-purana and some
older Mahatmyas, too. 61
4
Chapter Four
HIS FAMILY
Prof. Le'vi aptly observes : ‘By a privilege, unfortunately
very rare in the history of Sanskrit literature, the family of
Ksemendra participated in the immortality of the poet.’ 1
Ksemendra has left some useful information about his ancestry
in some of his notable works, viz., Ramayanamanjari, Maha-
bharatamanjarl, Brhatkathamanjari, Kavikanthibharana, Aucitya-
vicaracarca and Dasavataracarita. Ksemendra’s son Somendra
also has given an account of the poet’s genealogy in his Intro¬
duction to the Avadanakalpalata. From the above sources we
gather that Ksemendra’s father was Prakasendra, grandfather
Sindhu, and great grandfather Bhoglndra. We are also told
of one Narendra, a forefather of Ksemendra ; the names or
the number of descendants between Narendra and Bhoglndra
is not known to us.
Narendra was a minister to king Jayapida of Kashmir.
There are two Jayapidas mentioned in the Rajatarangini.
One was Jayasimha’s son. Jayasimha whose date of birth
may be fixed at Lokakala 4181, A.D. 1105-6, ascended the
throne in 1128 A.D.; he had five sons from Radda-devI, of
whom Jayapida was one. Chronology obviously does not
admit of identification of this Jayapida with the king under
whom Narendra served. The other Jayapida was the famous
grandson of the great king Lalitaditya Muktapida and the
youngest son of Bappiya or Vajraditya. He ruled over
Kashmir in the latter half of the eighth century, and his
career is described in Rajatarangini IV, verses 402 to 657.
Probably it was this Jayapida to whom Narendra was a
minister. Kalhana has mentioned the following ministers of
Jayapida : (i) Devasarman, (ii) Sukradanta, (iii) Thakkiya
(probably a minister, attached to the king), (iv) Vamana
and others, (v) Jayadatta, and (vi) Sivadasa (probably a
Family
51
minister or almost equal, a finance officer). Thus we see that
the name of Narendra is not included in the list of Jayapida’s
ministers as given by Kalhana. This has led Dr. Suryakanta
to conclude that “Narendra held some unimportant office, and
was perhaps one of the many ministers.” 2 Whatever that
might be, it was certainly a great interest, a proud pleasure
for Somendra to record the connection of his line with king
Jayaplda; and so he rightly made a respectful mention of
his forefather Narendra, describing him as a minister of the
said illustrious king of Kashmir. Narendra is characterised as
one of pure intellect (sumati) ; this shows that he had the
basic quality of a minister.
Ksemendra’s great grandfather, Bhoglndra has been des¬
cribed by Somendra as the abode of strength (sattvanidhi). 3
Somendra further describes him as one having immense plea¬
sures to enjoy (bhogavan) and compares him with the lord
of serpents (bhoglndra iva) having a huge body or a wide
hood (bhogavan). Dr. Suryakanta 4 and Dr. P. L. Vaidya 5
call him ‘Bhogendra’. But, Somendra’s account as it is in
the available editions of the Avadinakalpalata gives clearly
the name ‘Bhoglndra’ and not ‘Bhogendra’. It may be men¬
tioned here that Pt. M. S. Kaul Shastrl 0 and Dr. V. P. Mahajan 7
have both given the name ‘Bhoglndra’, without questioning its
genuineness or suggesting a variant. The simile coupled with
play upon words as employed by Somendra in the relevant
verse 8 in describing Ksemendra’s great grandfather obviously
owes its beauty and significance to the particular name-form
‘Bhoglndra’. A vital peculiarity of the rhetorical device used
here is that the upameya and the upamdna are words identi¬
cal in form, having different meanings ; and this peculiarity
is altogether lost if we read ‘Bhogendra’ for ‘Bhoglndra’. The
same rhetorical peculiarity as mentioned above is also notice¬
able in the verse following the one in question, where Sindhu
(Ksemendra’s grandfather) is compared to the sindhu
(ocean). This naturally exhibits Somendra’s fondness for
that particular design of poetical art, which he appears to
have employed with pleasure and a will. The above consi¬
deration may, therefore, be deemed competent enough to
52
Ksemendra
disarm any suggestion in favour of reading ‘Bhogendra’ to
the inevitable detriment of the peculiar figurative expression
contained in the verse under reference. Hence, although
‘Bhogendra’ would keep up a very good phonological akinness
with the many other name-forms, viz., ‘Narendra’, ‘Prakasen-
dra’, ‘Ksemendra’ and ‘Somendra’, yet, in view of the deli¬
berations put forth above, the correct name of Ksemendra’s
great grandfather seems to be ‘Bhoglndra’ and not ‘Bhogendra’
as given by Dr. Suryakanta and Dr. P. L. Vaidya. No
person of exactly the same name as Bhoglndra is traceable in
the Rajataranginl where, however, we have one Bhogasena
mentioned under king Uccala (1101-1111 A.D.) ; but, as Dr.
Suryakanta rightly points out, 9 the identification of our
Bhoglndra with this Bhogasena is not tenable on chronological
grounds.
Bhogindra’s son, Sindhu, as Somendra describes him in
a beautiful verse of his own, 10 was like the ocean, having
been the possessor of the goddess of wealth (Sri), the reser¬
voir of multitudes of pearl-like virtues, and the source of the
ambrosia of Learning. According to Hodgson Ms. of the
text in question, Sindhu was, further, the abode of strength
(sattvanidhi) and was like the ocean which is the abode
of (aquatic) animals (sattvanidhi). In the Ramayanaman-
jari, 11 Ksemendra suggests a comparision between Sindhu and
the ocean (sindhu) ; while in the Dasavataracarita, 12 he insti¬
tutes a contrast between his grandfather and the ocean (sindhu)
by describing him as one greater than the ocean (adhikah
sindhoh) ; the poet also aptly describes him there as one
of deep design (nimnasayah).
In the Kavyamala edition of the Dasavataracarita, 13 the
name of Ksemendra’s grandfather is given as ‘Sindif. Dr.
Mahajan also, in the family-tree provided by him, 14 has noticed
the form k Sindu\ but this he notes as an alternative for
‘Sindhu’. Dr. Buhler, 1B Prof. Le'vi, 16 Pt. Kaul, 17 Dr. Surya¬
kanta 18 and Mr. Nagendranath Vasu, 19 however, have all
recognised the only form, ‘Sindhu’. Although we cannot at
once rule out the claim of ‘Sindu’ as a rival substitute for
Family
53
‘Sindhu’. yet, in view of the name-form recorded in the
Ramayanamanjari as well as in Somendra’s account available
in the Avadanakalpalata, as also of the fact that ‘Sindu’ by
itself, unlike the other known names in Ksemendra’s genealogy,
is strikingly without any meaning, we are inclined to think
that ‘Sindhu’ and not ‘Sindu’ is the genuine name of
Ksemendra’s grandfather; ‘Sindu’ might be either a scribal
error or a softer form, current in popular use, adapted to
the needs of easier pronunciation.
It must be noted that, according to Dr. K. C. Pandey, 20
Ksemendra’s grandfather’s name was Nimnasaya. The same
view, on Dr. Pandey’s authority, has been recorded by Dr. A.
Sharma also. 21 The source of Dr. Pandey’s information, as
the scholar himself states, is Ksemendra’s Mahabharataman-
jari; and in support of his statement he produces a part
of a verse which, according to his own admission, he finds
in the said work. As a matter of fact, the verse referred
to is not traceable in the Mahabharatamanjari and there is no
mention of Ksemendra’s grandfather anywhere in the said work
as available to us. The verse in question occurs in the
Dasavataracarita. ‘Nimnasaya’ occurring in the said verse is,
in fact, not anybody’s name but a word qualifying ‘Sinduh’ 22 ,
which word is given there as the name of K^emendra's grand¬
father. This will be evident from a careful reading of the
relevant portion of the verse, which is as follows :
Kasmiresu babhuva Sinduradhikah
sindhosca nimnasayah 23
f In Kashmir, there was Sindu, of deep resolve, who
was greater than even the ocean.]
Dr. Pandey’s proposition naming one Nimnasaya as
Ksemendra’s grandfather is evidently based on an assumption
of syntactical relation between the two words, ‘sindhoh and
‘nimnasayah’ occurring in the above extract. But, to conjec¬
ture such a relation between the two words in question means
to let the word ‘adhikah’ stand awkwardly unrelated and
54
Ksemendra
almost meaningless. Again, even if we accept the syntactical
connection as above, which evidently constitutes the very basic
ground of Dr. Pandey’s statement in question, we cannot
indeed explain why the father of the supposed personality,
Nimnasaya should be named differently as ‘Sindu’ and ‘Sindhu*
in the same foot of the verse under reference. Further, in
the said verse as we have it in the Kavyamala edition of the
work in question, or in the extract given by Dr. Buhler from
his manuscript of the said work, 24 we have the three words,
viz., ‘Sindu’ (‘Sindhu’ according to Buhler’s manuscript),
‘Prakasendra’ and ‘Ksemendra’, printed in bold characters,
obviously meant to be marked out as personal names and to
be endowed with special importance as such. It should be
noticed that in contrast to the three names mentioned above
the word ‘nimnasayah’ in either of the said sources is not
in bold type ;—this certainly indicates that the scribes or the
editors concerned do not treat ‘nimnasaya’ as a personal name.
The history of Kashmir as told in the Rajataraligini
presents us a person of the name of Sindhu. He was minister
of finance (or treasurer ?) under the purely nominal reign
of Abhimanyu and under queen Didda (958-1003 A.D.). He
pillaged the Royal Treasury; and this, according to Prof.
Le'vi, 25 might be the possible explanation for the enormous
fortune of his son, Prakasendra. Thus Prof. Le'vi seems to
be inclined to identify Ksemendra’s grandfather, Sindhu with
Sindhu of the Rajatarahginl. The identification of the two
names, as Dr. Suryakanta rightly observes, 26 is tempting, and
the chronology also supports this ; but, a grave objection to
the identification consists in the fact that Sindhu of the
RajataranginI ‘is painted very black’ and is an extremely
wicked person unlike Ksemendra’s grandfather. Sindhu who
has been described by both Ksemendra and Somendra as a
glorious figure. With a critical interpreter, however, the
obvious difference of colour between these two Sindhus might
not carry as much weight as has been attached to it ; for,
on the one hand, nobody can deny the possibility that
Kalhana, whose account of Sindhu was evidently based on
some indirect knowledge about him. happened to emphasise
Family
55
and largely magnify his darker traits ; on the other hand, it is
equally possible that Ksemendra and Somendra were deli¬
berately indifferent to their beloved forefather’s declivities of
character, if any, and indulged in stressing his virtues and
spreading a halo of brilliance around his name. The above
possibilities admitted, the difference in character-portrayal of
the two Sindhus is perhaps explained. Besides, the said diffe¬
rence may be accounted for by reference to the fact that
while Kalhana’s account of Sindhu depicts the man in the
background of his career as an officer in charge of the Royal
Treasury of Kashmir, the sketches by Ksemendra and Somen¬
dra consist merely in some general remarks, poetical and
indeterminate, regarding Sindhu’s learning, intelligence and
other virtues ; and it would also not be an importunate venture
to conceive a combination of learning and shrewdness, of
eminence and meanness, and of virtues and villainy in a single
human character. Dr. Suryakanta says that “Ksemendra
praises his grandfather for his charity and devotion to Siva.” 21
The evidence at our disposal does not support this alleged
attribution by Ksemendra of these specific virtues to his grand¬
father, Sindhu. What is rather deserving of notice in the
present context is that Ksemendra describes his grandfather as
‘nimnasayah’, i.e., a man of inscrutable resolve; further,
Somendra describes Sindhu as ‘sriman, i.e., a man having
plenty of fortune. These two attributes, ‘nimnasayah’ and
‘sriman’, taken together, may be viewed as very much signi¬
ficant in having a close bearing on Sindhu’s life and character
as revealed in Kalhana’s account of the man.
Regarding identification of the two Sindhus, Dr. Surya-
kanta has registered his further objection in the following
words : “Sindhu of the Rajatarafigini had a son Matanga, who
was also a treasurer to Sangramaraja (1003-28 A.D.). We
find no mention of Matanga in Ksemendra’s writings.’ - If
Matanga was a son of Ksemendra’s grandfather, Sindhu, he
was either an uncle or the father of Ksemendra. Ksemendra
indeed does not say anything as to whether he had any uncle ;
evidently he had no occasion for it. His silence on this point
cannot, therefore, be confidently used as an evidence for
56
Ksemendra
exploding an assumption that Mataiiga was an uncle of
Ksemendra. Again, although Ksemendra as well as Somendra
gives the name of Ksemendra’s father as Prakasendra and not
as Mataiiga, we have no positive evidence to contradict the
possibility that Matanga was another name of Ksemendra’s
father. In this connection, reference may be made to a very
significant statement by Ksemendra, which is as follows :
“Praptastasya gunaprakarsayasasi putrah Prakasendratam.” 28
In the above extract Ksemendra means to say that Sindhu’s
son, by virtue of his reputation for excellent qualities, attained
to the state of having the name ‘Prakasendra’. This suggests
that Prakasendra was not the original name of Sindhu’s son,
but that it was an honorific epithet acquired by him later on,
being ultimately recognised and used as his bonafide personal
name. Such being the case, we are provided with a scope for
supposing that Prakasendra, Ksemendra’s father, was perhaps
originally known as Matanga. The supposition, again, identi¬
fying Prakasendra as Matanga, treasurer to Sahgramaraja,
would certainly go to explain the financial affluence of Ksemen¬
dra’s father so proudly spoken of by Ksemendra himself.
Although we have no clear and conclusive evidence to subs¬
tantiate the possible suppositions as above, it would perhaps
hardly be justified to throw them into the wind as utterly
untenable.
Dr. Suryakanta’s strongest objection to identification of
the two Sindhus, in his own words, is : “The objection, which
explodes the identification is that according to the Rajata-
rangini, Sindhu’s father was a litter-carrier Kuyya. Somendra
says that Sindhu’s father was Bhogendra. We have no justifi¬
able grounds for indentifying ‘Kuyya’ with Bhogendra.” 30
The fact that Kuyya was an ordinary litter-carrier need not
unavoidably be considered to be a bar against his identifica¬
tion with Ksemendra’s great grandfather Bhogindra (Bhogendra
according to Dr. Suryakanta), presumably a distinguished per¬
sonality in the line of minister Narendra; for, in Kalhana’s
narration of the Kashmirian history, we come across strange
cases of people ascending from humble origin to exalted
heights, and vice versa. In any case it must be said, we
Family
57
have no evidence worth the name either to prove or to dis¬
prove that Kuyya and Bhogindra were identical.
Ln the present state of our knowledge, therefore, as the
benefit of doubt can reasonably be. appropriated by neither
side, it would be judicious to reserve the verdict on the justifi¬
ability or otherwise of identification of the two Sindhus—
Sindhu of the Rajatarangini and Sindhu, the grandfather of
Ksemendra.
The Brhatkathamanjari in its Upasamhara presents its
apparent purpose to give the name of Ksemendra s father as
something like Prakanda, although, grammatically, the rele¬
vant expression as it occurs there fails to give correctly the
new suspected name. The expression in question is as
follows : “Kasmirako gunadhara-Prakandscabhidho’ bhavat. 11
Analogous to this, the expression in the Mahabharatamanjan
reads thus : “Kasmiriko guiiadharah Prakascndrabhidho’
bhavat.” 32 The latter expression contains no grammatical
irregularity and gives the name clearly as Prakasendra. It
seems to be highly probable that the expressions were originally
identical in the Brhatkathamanjari and the Mahabharataman-
jari and that the present peculiar variants (as noticeable in
the Brhatkathamanjari), viz., ‘Kasmirako’ for Kasmiriko’,
‘gunadhara’ (forming part of a compound) for ‘gunadhara^’
(a distinctly separate word), and ‘Prakandasca’ for ‘Praka¬
sendra-’, were nothing but scribal errors. The name ‘Praka¬
sendra’ is given by Ksemendra in the Ramayanamanjari and
the Dasavataracarita, too. Somendra also gives the same
name in his Introduction to the Avadanakalpalata. In the
last colophon (just following the Vyasastaka) of the Maha-
bharatamaiijari, Ksemendra is described as ‘Prakasendrasunu'
(son of Prakasendra). He is similarly described as Praka-
sendra’s son (‘Praklsendratmaja’) in each of the colophons
to the three chapters of the Suvrttatilaka, and to the Aucitya-
vicaracarca and the Carucarya. Thus, in ten out of the eleven
available sources (four verses by Ksemendra, one verse by
Somendra and six colophons) as mentioned above, which
contain the name of Ksemendra’s father, the name is clearly
58
Ksemendra
given as Prakasendra. From this we may be almost sure that
Prakasendra is the real familiar name of Ksemendra’s father
and that the expression in the Brhatkathamanjarl, quoted above,
which appears to present a different name, is faulty and un¬
warranted. The genuineness of the name ‘Prakasendra’ may
be further attested by a statement of Ksemendra where the
poet ingeniously gives a fine analytic signification of the said
name of his father. The statement is as follows : “Sampurna-
danasamtustah prahustam brahmanah sada/lndra evasi kimt-
vekah prakasaste guno’dhikah //'” 33 # The expression in the
second half of the above verse obviously takes ‘Indra’ as the
principal part and ‘Prakasa’, taken to be an attributive word,
as the subordinate part of the name explained, so that the full
name reconstructed out of this would necessarily be ‘Praka¬
sendra’. The Brahmanas, as the verse means to signify, were
highly pleased at Prakasendra’s bounteous gifts, and used to
extol him, by affirming a wholesome explanation of his name,
as nicely conceived by them, with the manifest purpose of
assigning him a place of honour higher than that of the good
god, Indra. Pt. M. S. Kaul Shastri, presumably on the basis
of the verse quoted above, remarks : “His (i.e. Prakasendra’s)
high-sounding title of Tndra was conferred on him on account
of the handsome gifts he made to Brahmins.” 34 In the light
of Pt. Kaul’s remark as above, the real and original name of
Ksemendra’s father seems to have been ‘Prakasa’ having the
title ‘Indra’ subsequently affixed to it.
Prakasendra } Ksemendra’s father, to believe the accounts
of his son and his grandson, was a magnificent personality.
He had enormous wealth ; he made munificent charities ; and
his modesty went beyond his riches and liberalities. Ksemendra
describes Prakasendra as one born of Sindhu (literally, the
ocean), like a second moon, whose fame resembling the
moonbeam eternally graced the earth. 35 He is further described
thus : With his hand (trunk) wet ever with charities (rut),
having an auspicious bearing, and holding the banner of glory,
the great Prakasendra attained well to the state of an
elephant. 36 He was like a wish-yielding tree, the fulfiller of
the desires of multitudes of needy people. 37 He was like the
Family
59
Meru, the abode of abundant wealth full of liberal grace. 18
He was a man of excellent virtues and by his manifold charities
to the chief Brahmanas he became pre-eminently famous. 3 *'
In his fortune and fame he was considered equal to Indra,
nay, even superior to him. 40 Somendra pays homage to his
grandfather in the following words : Sindhu’s son, Prakasendra
was like Prakasendra (and none else) on earth ; by his merits
earned by charities he became endowed with the virtues of
the Bodhisattva. 41 Ksemendra gives some specific instances of
his father’s charitable nature. We are told that Prakasendra
made gifts of food, money, land, house, cows and black
buckskins to the Brahmanas in whose honour he also gave
numerous repasts in his house. 42 On the occasion of the
solar eclipse, he gave three lac to the Brahmanas along with
three kfsnajinas each. But he accused himself of avarice even
after such liberalities. 43 Prakasendra was a scholar, too. A
great patron of learning, religion and the Brahmanas, he
installed images of deities in the temple of Svayambhu or
Svayambhu-Sambhu-Vijaya, or, according to Pt. Kaul, 4 ’ at
Svayam near Nijihama in Handawira Tahsil, and spent a lot
of money on the gods. Brahmanas and monasteries. 40
He was a fervent devotee of Siva. He worshipped his god
till the last day of his life and died in Siva’s temple with
tears flowing in devotional outburst and the image of his god
clasped in close embrace. 4 '
Ksemendra’s son, Somendra also, as Somendra himself
informs us, was a poet; he describes himself as -Niruddha-
paranamadheyah’; 48 —this may mean that Somendra had a
second name ‘Niruddha’, or that, whatever his other name (or
names), that (or they) went out of use, being replaced (lit.
obstructcd-niruddha) by the name ‘Somendra gaining currency
at home and abroad. The relevant expression in this connec¬
tion (fn. 48), viewed in its compact entirety and possible
hyperbolic import, may be interpreted also to suggest that
Somendra became very famous as a poet so much so that
he came to be known only as a ‘Poet’ (Kavi), his personal
name ‘Somendra’ having sunk into forgetfulness. Somendra
had the good idea of completing an auspicious number by
60
Ksemendra
adding one more chapter, the last and 108th Pallava, to the
107 paternal chapters of the Avadanakalpalata. 49 In the
108th Pallava, and in his Introduction, consisting of fifteen
verses, to the said chapter of the Avadanakalpalata, as also
in the nineteen verses which serve as a prelude to the great
work as a whole, he has left for us an evidence of his
significant contribution to literature. Since Somendra intro¬
duces himself as a poet, it is very likely that *he had some
more writings to his credit, which unfortunately have not sur¬
vived. Within the rather narrow scope of the small produc¬
tion as above, Somendra has indeed been able to give a good
account of his sparkling poetic faculty characterised by clarity
of thought and lucidity of expression rendered agreeable by
effective literary devices including efficient employment of
various figures of speech, etc. A brief analysis of his literary
qualities has been attempted in a special chapter in the
Appendix (Vol. II), devoted to the purpose. Somendra
deserves undoubtedly our compliments for the information he
has furnished regarding Ksemendra’s life and the composition
of his immortal work, Avadanakalpalata. Somendra had
great respect for his father Ksemendra whose poetry he praises
in the highest terms of appreciation. 50 He had supreme
reverence for the Buddha and his teachings, the Bauddha
philosophy and the holy Jataka stories. 51 It is this deep
devotion to the Buddha and the Buddhistic lore which evi¬
dently prompted Somendra to get himself associated with the
production of the Avadanakalpalata and thereby entitle himself
to imperishable spiritual merit and attain greatness. Thus he
says : Tasmin mayapyaksayapunya-lobhadekavadanapratimar-
piteyam/Mahatmanarh praudhapadanusari svalpo’pyayatnena
mahattvameti // 52 (There, by me, again, has been offered this
image of an avadana, out of a craving for undecaving spiritual
merit. Even a very small person, by following in the mature
foot-prints of the great, attains to greatness by little effort.).
What spiritual merit Somendra actually earned for himself
by adding the 108th chapter is really beyond our common
knowledge. But, it must be admitted that by- his precious
contribution in the Avadanakalpalata he has shared with his
illustrious father the rare reward of immortal fame in the
Family
61
literary circle. As Prof. Le , vi puts it, his piety saved him
from oblivion’. 5 "
We have no specific evidence to show that Ksemendra
had any other offspring. But, yet, we cannot ignore the
possible indication contained in the expression ‘asmatpitrava-
dananam’ 54 by Somendra, of which the component part ‘asmat-
pitr’ meaning ‘our father’ might be taken to signify plurality
of Ksemendra’s offspring. In view, however, of the gramma¬
tical dictum “Asmado Dvayosca”, 55 the base ‘asmad’ may be
used optionally in the plural number to indicate the singular
or dual number. Hence the word in question, i.e., ‘asmat-
pitr’ may be interpreted in favour of any one of the following
suppositions : (i) Ksemendra was the father of only one child.
Somendra, (ii) He had one more offspring excepting his son,
Somendra, and (iii) He had begotten more than two off¬
spring including Somendra.
Prof. Le'vi raised a question as to whether it is necessary
to reckon as a brother of Ksemendra the poet Cakrapala who
is cited in the Kavikanthabharana, being introduced by the
words : “Yatha caitad-bhratus Cakrapalasya.” 5 * In the family
tree of Ksemendra as provided by Dr. Suryakanta we
actually find the name of one Cakrapala as Ksemendra’s
brother. 67 The name itself sounds strangely unusual, being
out of tune with the names of the other near members of
the family, viz., Prakasendra, Ksemendra and Somendra. Of
course, the claim put forth in favour of Cakrapala’s being
recognised as a brother of Ksemendra cannot be challenged
merely on the stated ground of queer discordance in the
structure of the former’s name-form in relation to the other
names mentioned above. But, what is important in this
connection is that Dr. Suryakanta does not appear to be in
the right in making the statement that “in the Kavikantha¬
bharana, Ksemendra mentions Cakrapala as his brother.” 6 "
In the second Sandhi of the Kavikanthabharana, while illus¬
trating ‘Thriving on borrowed words’, Ksemendra immediately
after quoting a verse of poet Muktakana, says : “Yatha
caitadbhratus Cakrapalasya”, which expression has been ren-
62
Ksemendra
dered by Dr. Suryakanta as follows : ‘Compare his brother
Cakrapala’s (verse)’. The pronoun ‘etad’ in the word
‘etadbhratuh’ occurring in the above-quoted statement obvious¬
ly refers to poet Muktakana mentioned just before in the said
context, so that Cakrapala, according to Ksemendra’s state¬
ment under discussion, appears to be Muktakana’s brother and
not Ksemendra’s. Dr. Suryakanta, too, in his faithful render¬
ing as quoted above of the text in question, does not seem
to imply any contradiction to our supposed meaning of the
word ‘etadbhratuh’. It seems to be strange, therefore, how,
according to the learned scholar, the said expression of
Ksemendra, viz., ‘etadbhratr’ (his brother) could after all
mean ‘Ksemendra’s brother and not Muktakana’s’. If the
word were simply ‘bhratuh’ instead of ‘etadbhratuh’, there
might have been possibly some scope for entertaining the
admissibility of the word referring the relationship to the
author himself, but, even then, no definite conclusion could
have been reached, since, in that case also, by reason of its
close proximity to the name ‘Muktakana’, ‘Bhratr’ of the
supposed word ‘Bhratuh’ might have been taken to suggest
the meaning of ‘Muktakana’s brother’. However, since we
are loath to believe that Dr. Suryakanta while making the
statement in question did not take proper notice of the pro¬
noun ‘etad’ in the word ‘etadbhratuh’, he was, it must be
admitted, consciously inclined to believe that by ‘etad’ in the
said expression, Ksemendra referred to himself. Although the
practice of referring to oneself in the third person instead of
in the usual first person is not absolutely rare in Sanskrit
literature, there is indeed no sufficient reason or occasion for
us to suppose that Ksemendra followed the said practice in
his deliberations as contained in the treatise under reference,
i.e., the Kavikanthabharana, or elsewhere; on the contrary,
it may be pointed out, there are copious examples not only
in the Kavikanthabharana but in the Aucityavicaracarca and
the Suvrttatilaka also to show that in quoting a verse or naming
a book of his own Ksemendra invariably refers to himself
in the first person. Attention may be drawn to the fact that
almost immediately after quoting Cakrapala whom he intro¬
duces as ‘etadbhratr’ Ksemendra quotes a verse composed by
Family
63
himself, which he introduces with the words ‘yatha mama’ and
not with ‘yatha etasya’ or ‘yatha Ksemendrasya’. It would,
therefore, be an extremely strained, rather preposterous con¬
jecture to mean ‘my brother’ (i.e. K?cmendra’s brother) by
‘etadbhratr’ in the text under reference. It deserves notice
that Dr. Mahajan, in the genealogical tree given by him, does
not mention Cakrapala or anybody else as Ksemendra’s
brother. 59 Pt. M. S. Kaul Shastri, Dr. P. V. Kane, Dr. K. C.
Pandey, the editors of ‘Minor works of Ksemendra’ and several
others in their respective accounts of Ksemendra’s ancestry
have not similarly noticed any Cakrapala as related to Ksemen¬
dra by blood or otherwise. That Cakrapala was a brother
to poet Muktakana of the 9th century A.D. is, further, expli¬
citly admitted by the editors of ‘Minor Works of Ksemendra’. 60
The editorial note on SriCakra who is quoted under Rule 25
(propriety in the use of particles) of the Aucityavicaracarca
as published in the Kavyamala series (Part I, 1886) clearly
identifies this Cakrapala as Muktakana’s brother, thus : “Muk-
takanabhrata Cakrapala iti Kavikanthabharane.” 61
Chapter Five
HIS RACE AND CASTE
Mr. S. C. Das, in his edition of Ksemendra’s Avadana-
kalpalata, makes a categorical statement to the effect that
Ksemendra’s ancestors drew their descent from the race of
the Sakyas. 1 It is unfortunate that neither has Mr. Das adduced
any evidence in support of his statement nor have we been
able to find any information anywhere which might throw
light on the same. We, however, know of an intimate relation
of Kashmir with emperor Asoka who came in contact with
the Valley early in his life and established his sway there as
its ruler and benefactor and a promoter of Dharma. 2 Now
Asoka, if the Buddhist tradition is to be believed, belonged to
the Sakya race. 3 In view of this tradition, it may be supposed
that as a sequel to Asoka’s sovereign sway and benevolent
activities in Kashmir, groups of Sakya people, besides monks
and missionaries, also had occasion to migrate into the land.
It is also not unlikely that, during his reign, Asoka entrusted
the charge of some important departments of the Kashmir
Government to some officers of his own choice who were
Sikyas. Thus there would be no reason for surprise it
Ksemendra’s ancestors who are supposed to have been high
officials of the Kashmir Government since early times were
ethnically connected with the race of these Sakva migrants
or officials of Asoka’s time. Further, as is just evident from
the Introduction (pp. xiii. xvi, xvii) by Gon Salnapa Chhenpo,
the first sovereign Dalai Lama, to the Tibetan version of
Ksemendra’s Avadanakalpalata, 4 Ksemendra was held in hig
esteem by a large section of the Tibetans for his unique
contribution in the abovenamed work to the Buddhistic bio¬
graphical literature. It deserves notice that in the said Intro¬
duction (p. xiii) the poet has been most reverentially described
as 'dharmaraja’ (chos. rgval. dge. dbani. This profound
respect for the writer of the Buddha’s life, Ksemendra, might
Race and Caste
65
have, as is often quite natural in such cases, generated among
some Tibetan devotees a pious notion gradually maturing
into the firm belief that the forefathers of this saintly author
sprang from the line of the noble Sakya race to which the
Buddha himself belonged ; and Mr. Das’s statement as men¬
tioned above might well be an echo of that popular belief.
According to the Nilamata Purina, the Sakvas evidently
meant the Bauddha ascetics or followers of the Buddha . 5
Ksemendra’s ‘Avadanakalpalata’ which entitled him to a
singular honour probably made the people look upon him
and his ancestors also as Sakyas or Bauddha ascetics—an
assumption which may equally present an excuse for the
statement of Mr. Das. But, obviously, all this is nothing
but a convenient surmise which seeks merely to suggest some
probable explanation, strained and far-fetched though, of the
association as affirmed by Mr. Das of the name of Ksemen-
dra with that of the Sakya race. At any rate, it must be
admitted that, in the absence of anv positive evidence, the
statement of Mr. Das may at best be deemed as a pleasant
conjecture which can claim no more value than is just its due.
Some are inclined to believe that Ksemendra was a
Brahmana by caste . 6 The name ‘Ksemendra,’ which is a
combination of ‘Ksema’ and Tndra’, may, in the light Manu’s
prescription regarding ‘Naming ’, 7 lead one to think that he was
a Brahmana. It may be pointed out that the author of
Lipiviveka and Matrkaviveka , 8 who was also named Ksemen¬
dra, was a Brahmana. But no conclusion can certainly be
derived merely from consideration of the name-form as above,
for the following reasons : (i) We do not know whether
the name of our poet had any one of the usual upapadas
recommended by Manu, e.g., sarman, deva t varman, etc ., 9
and, if he had any, what that exactly was. So to look for the
poet’s caste in the light of Manu cannot possibly yield a con¬
vincing result; (ii) Although, as mentioned initially, the name
‘Ksemendra,’ from the point of view of Manu’s injunction,
may look like a Brahmana’s name, the name of Ksemendra’s
forefather, Narendra, might, again, from an identical point of
view, appear to be the name of a Ksatriya. Medhatithi
5
66
Ksemendra
mentions ‘Prajapala’ as an illustration of the type of name
recommended by Manu for Ksatriyas . 10 In its sense and
significance, ‘Narendra’ may very well be regarded as a
replica of ‘Prajapala’. This also frustrates the probable
conclusion that might follow from consideration of the spirit
and structure of Ksemendra’s name in the light of Manu’s
recommendation as referred to above; and, (iii) The re¬
commendations of ancient Indian authorities as regards dis¬
tinctive name-forms for individuals belonging to different
castes cannot be alleged to have been followed strictly and
universally. Thus, the name ‘Bhavabhuti’, in the light of
Manu, looks like a Vaisya’s name, although admittedly the
famous poet by that name was a Brahmana by caste . 11 Hence,
also, it would not be a wise step to search for the truth
about Ksemendra’s caste by judging his name-form with
reference to the relevant injunctions laid down in the Sastras.
The fact that Ksemendra’s father Narendra was a
minister of a king may incline us to suppose that he was a
Brahmana, because ‘we know of some famous Brahmana
ministers, viz., Canakya, Say ana etc.’ 1J and also because it is
recommended in the ancient Codes that, in the appointment
of ministers and high executive officials, noble birth should
be considered as one of the essential qualifications , 13 and in
an ancient Indian society, specially of the Brahmanical order,
a Brahmana normally claims preference in respect of superio¬
rity in birth. But perhaps the above argument cannot be
deemed strong enough for a definite conclusion to be derived
on the point at issue. To quote Dr. Manomohan Ghosh,
“Ksatriyas too at times might have occupied the position of
a minister” just as “Brahmanas have sometimes been the chief
commander of the army (senapati), a post to which Ksatriyas
should naturally be entitled ”. 14 In fact, on the evidence ot
authorities we can say that the post of a minister was not
as a rule reserved for Brahmanas only but that the appoint¬
ment of ministers could be made from among Brahmanas,
Ksatriyas and Vaisyas alike . 15 In the history of Kashmir we
do come across good many names of ministers and other
high officials who were not Brahmanas. Thus, for example.
Race and Caste
67
a foreigner from the Tuhkhara land, Cankuna by name, was
a very influential minister of Lalitaditya Muktapida ; 18 Tunga,
a low-born hillman, became Prime Minister ; n Bhadresvara, a
Kayastha, became Prime Minister during Sangramaraja’s
rule ; 18 Haladhara, a Vaisya, got the Prime-Ministership
under Ananta ; 10 Sunna together with his younger brother,
who were grandsons of Ksema, a barber, enjoyed high 8
position among the ministers during Harsa’s regime ; 20 and,
Gauraka, the Prime Minister, was a Kayastha . 21 In view
of the above, we cannot boldly assert that Ksemendra’s grand¬
father Narendra, because he was a minister of a king, was
necessarily a Brahmana by caste. Thus we are not the least
helped by Narendra in our attempt to determine the caste of
his illustrious descendant, Ksemendra.
Ksemendra, as we know, was the guru of Bhatta Udaya¬
simha 22 and Rajaputra Laksmanaditya . 23 We may be inclined
to believe that Bhatta Udayasimha was a Brahmana, for
‘Bhatta is a term which is usually found affixed or prefixed to
the names of learned Brahmanas ; and this would again lead
us to suppose that Ksemendra was a Brahmana, for, it is
difficult to think of a Brahmana having been the sisya of a
non-Brahmana guru in ancient India. But, still, our way of
thought as above cannot ensure a safe and clean conclusion.
Although, in Ksemendra’s Lokaprakasa, ‘Bhatta’ is given as a
name of ‘Brahmana ,’ 24 the word has been generally used by
the poet himself to mean ‘wise and learned men’ 25 —a sense
recognised by modern lexicographers also . 28 ‘Bhatta’ is also
a title of honour used by inferior persons addressing or deno¬
ting a prince or a king . 27 The word also means an offspring
born of a Sudra and Vaisya. or of a Ksatriva and a Vipra ; 38
it is also the name of a mixed caste of hereditary panegyrists . 29
It may be supposed that Ksemendra’s pupil Udayasimha was
none but the son of the poet’s friend, Ratnasimha, king of
Vijayesa, mentioned in the Aucityavicaracarca . 30 In the work
referred to above, the name of prince Udayasimha appears
without ‘Bhatta’ prefixed to it, whereas in the Kavikantha-
bharana, while citing an example from a work by Udayasimha,
Ksemendra mentions his name with ‘Maha-Sri-Bhatta’ prefixed
68
Ksemendra
to it. Evidently, the term ‘Bhatta’ (as also ‘Maha-Sri’) quali¬
fying the name here is used as a title of respect for any
royal dignity that Udaya might have inherited or acquired after
his father’s demise, or preferably to indicate his learning and
poetic faculty as already attested by his literary production
referred to by his teacher, Ksemendra himself. Hence we may
*be almost sure that Ksemendra’s pupil Bhatta Udayasimha was
not a Brahmana. His other pupil Laksmanaditva who is ex¬
pressly stated to have been a prince (rajaputra) was also evi¬
dently not a Brahmana. And we have as yet no evidence to
show that Ksemendra had ever a Brahmana pupil. As Dr. A.
Sharma and his colleagues describe him, “he was the Guru of
princes and kings .” 31 So, the weight of the belief alleging Kse¬
mendra to be a Brahmana may provisionally be lifted from upon
the auestion of his caste. Notwithstanding this, an objection may,
however, be urged, as it has actually been done by scholars
in discussing the question of caste with reference to the renow¬
ned poet Rajasekhara, that ‘it was unbecoming for a Ksatriya
to be a guru or upadhyaya ’, 32 or that it is very unlikely that
in the eleventh century princes or kings made a Ksatriya their
teacher . 33 But the above objection does not stand, since,
according to the verdict of the Dharmasastras, ‘there is no
total prohibition against a Ksatriya’s being a teacher ’. 34 In
view of all this it would certainly not be reasonable yet to
maintain that Ksemendra was necessarily a Brahmana. The
probability that he mi^ht belong to a non-Brahmana caste
cannot indeed be denied.
There is one thing which must be noticed as very impor¬
tant in the oresent context. From Ksemendra’s autobiogra¬
phical accounts we know that his father Prakasendra was a
great patron of Brahmanas. Ksemendra apparently took spe¬
cial interest in mentioning as one of his father's special virtues
Prakasendra’s devotion to Brahmanas whose blessing he is
stated to have earned by his generous charities to them. It
is but evident that Ksemendra held the Brahmana com¬
munity in high esteem. The poet appreciated the value of the
Brahmanical order of society and considered that the upsetting
of this order constitutes a great evil . 35 In his Carucarya
Race and Caste
69
Ksemendra says : “Brahmanan navamanyeta Brahmasapo hi
duhsahah ”. 36 Besides, while speaking of one Ramayasas, both
Ksemendra and his son Somendra describe him as a Brah¬
mana . 37 One Devadhara has also been described by Ksemen¬
dra as holding the position of ‘Dvijaraja’, i.e . 5 ‘Chief of Brah-
manas ’. 38 Evidently, both Ksemendra and Somendra were
keenly conscious about the distinctive social status of the
Brahmanas so that they thought it proper to introduce a
Brahmana expressly as a Brahmana and thereby to signify his
worth as such. Keeping this in view and assuming at the same
time that Ksemendra was born in a Brahmana family, we
would probably find no way to explain why neither Ksemen¬
dra nor Somendra chose ever to utter a single word to specify
the supposed social status of their family. Ksemendra has taken
care to introduce very respectfully some of his ancestors to
us ; he has said a lot about his father on whose glory and
greatness he is rather eloquent; Somendra has similarly pre¬
sented a glowing picture of his family and has spoken very
highly of his father Ksemendra. Had it been a Brahmana
family in which Ksemendra and Somendra were born, the
fact would certainly have been indicated at least once in their
animating family accounts along with the several details given
with so much care and interest. True it is that silence about
a thing does not invariably mean the negation thereof; but,
when eloquence is just duly expected, silence is indeed extremely
significant. To conjecture, therefore, that Ksemendra and
Somendra belonged to a Brahmana family and that their silence
about their caste was a plain case of omission due to indiffer¬
ence or inadvertence or of suppression of fact due to extreme
modesty or other reasons cannot possibly, in the light of our
above discussion, be suffered even as a matter of abstract
argument. Hence, it appears to be highly probable that
Ksemendra did not belong to the caste of the Brahmana. If,
however, credence is given to Mr. Das’s statement connecting
Ksemendra’s heredity with the Sakya race , 39 it may be sup¬
posed that Ksemendra was a Ksatriya. for the Sakyas whose
origin is traced back to King Okkaka, i.e., Iksvaku of the
great solar dynasty, claimed to be Ksatriyas . 40
Chapter Six
THE RULING KINGS OF HIS TIME
Of the many works of Ksemendra, that have seen the
light till today, the following seven contain mention of the
king of Kashmir during whose reign the poet flourished :
(i) Narmamala, (ii) Suvrttatilaka, (iii) Avadanakalpalata,
(iv) Aucityavicaracarca, (v) Kavikanthabharana, (vi) Samaya-
matrka, and (vii)^ Dasavataracarita. The remaining works
forming about two-thirds of the total number of his available
treatises are conspicuous by their silence about the ruling king
of the poet’s time. Attention may here be drawn to Dr.
Suryakanta’s statement which runs as follows : “Ksemendra
gives the name of the ruling king in all his works.” 1 This
observation of Dr. Suryakanta obviously lacks agreement with
the facts noted above relating to the point in question.
In each of the works, Narmamala, Suvrttatilaka, Aucitya-
vicaracarca, Kavikanthabharana and Samayamatrka, Ksemendra
mentions the name of Ananta as the ruling king. In the
Dasavataracarita also, in the first among the concluding verses,
he mentions Ananta; but Ananta is not described there as
the king, but is named, in a benedictory strain, along with
Visnu, whose benevolence the poet invokes for the good of the
people. The last and fifth concluding verse of the same book,
however, mentions Kalasa as the king. 2
Kalhana in his Rajatarangini (VII. 134-723) gives a
rather elaborate sketch of the career and character of king
Ananta and his son and successor, king Kalasa of Kashmir. 3
The incidents of Ananta’s accession, abdication and death,
and the incident of Kalasa’s death may be assigned to the
years 1028, 1063, 1081 and 1089 A.D., respectively. The
accounts given by different scholars of the career of Ananta
and his son, Kalasa are virtually based on Kalhana’s Raja-
tarangini and are necessarily, except for some minor discre-
The Ruling Kings
71
pancies here and there, almost identical in respect of the various
notable events of their career along with the specific dates
relating to such events. 4 It is apparent that the rule of Ananta
and his son, Kalasa covered approximately a period of sixty
years, extending from the second to the fourth quarter of the
eleventh century of the Christian era. Ananta’s predecessor
was his brother, Hariraja who died in 1028 A.D. after a
brief rule of only twenty-two days. Hariraja’s predecessor
was his father, Samgrarnaraia who succeeded Queen Didda
(981 A.D.—1003 A.D.) and was king of Kashmir from 100?
A.D. to 1028 A.D. Ksemendra, it is supposed, had his birth
in Kashmir in the last decade of the tenth century and died
in his homeland about 1070 A.D. He, therefore, lived under
a succession of five different rulers^ Didrla. Samgramaraja, Hari¬
raja, Ananta and Kalasa. Born during Didda’s sovereign rule,
Ksemendra was only a young boy when the queen had reached
the end of about half a century of her ruthless government,
first as queen consort, then as regent and ultimately as
sovereign. With the close of Samgramaraja’s reign, the poet
must have completed his educational career and set his hand
to poetic craftsmanship. The important period of Ksemendra’s
literary activity, as may be evident from an inquiry into the
chronology of the poet’s works, almost synchronises with the
period of Ananta’s sovereign rule and continues for a few
years more after the king’s formal abdication in favour of his
son, Kalasa. It is interesting to note that not only most
of Ksemendra’s works were composed during Ananta’s rule
but some of the poet’s best compositions, viz., Suvrttatilaka,
Aucityavicaracarca, Avadanakalpalata, Kavikanthabharana
and Samayantatrka, were produced during the time Ananta’s
royal glory reached its zenith. We cannot, therefore, agree
with Dr. S. K. De who holds that Ksemendra wrote most of
his works under king Kalasa of Kashmir. 5
Ksemendra speaks very highly of Ananta’s manliness and
magnanimity of heart, and expresses genuine pride and delight
in referring to his valorous expeditions that were crowned with
unique success as well as to his strange superhuman powers
72
Ksemendra
and the excellence of his conduct and character. In his
Narmamala, Ksemendra refers to Ananta thus :
Yasmin Praiyabhujastambha-
stambhitahitavikramah /
Trivikrama iva Sriman-
Ananto Balijinnrpah / / fi
Here the poet compares king Ananta with Trivikrama, i.e., god
Visnu, with an obvious reference to the legend narrating the
overpowering of the all-powerful Bali by Visnu, and speaks
of the king’s immense prowess which vanquished his valiant
foes. Further, like Visnu, the lord of Sri, i.e., goddess LaksmI
(Sriman), the king was the master of abundant wealth
(sriman) ; and the strength of his adversaries was stupefied
by the pillars of his huge arms. In the Suvrttatilaka, Ksemen¬
dra describes Ananta as the warder of his friends’ crisis, as the
performer of wonders, as the king of kings and as the con¬
queror of the world. 7 In the last verse of his Aucityavicara-
carca, the poet describes Anantaraja as a king of good grace,
famous in the three worlds for his conduct and learning,
having the sword as his attendant, who by his submission to
Siva attained immense prosperity of a unique order, and the
fire of whose valour continuously cooled down the quarters. 8
The last verse of the Kavikanthabharana depicts the king thus :
He is the sun by his great prowess ; he is the moon, the lord
of stars in the form of the rays of his fame ; he is the con¬
flagration to the forest of inveterate foes; he is Indra, the
bestower of wealth, on earth ; having the world as his form
(or, having his command pervading the world) and possess¬
ing abundant virility, he is, again, in the Kali age, like Visnu
of universal form. 0 The last two concluding verses of the
Samayamatrka contain a full-throated eulogy extolling king
Ananta on his attaining sovereignty. We get there a clear
idea of the devastating defeat wrought by the king’s heroic
enterprises upon his enemies. The widowed young wives of
his vanquished enemies, as the verses put it, were rendered
completely helpless ; they were prevented by the aged women-
The Ruling Kings
73
hunters, moved to pity by their plaintive cries, from
rushing for refuge deep into the woods which were terrible
on account of the cavities of the hills there being infested
with deadly hosts of restless angry serpents, infuriated elephants
dwelling here and there, and some caves being inhabited by
lions. 10 He was, as the poet further characterizes him there,
not only a valiant king, but a man with a heart bleeding for
the destitute and the distressed on whom he was ever eager
to bestow his mercy and favour. He had for his ornaments
his good conduct and religious observances. In his victorious
enterprise, his sword, an obliging friend of his, rent asunder
the foes and knew no other duty to perform. 11 In the first
of the five concluding verses of his Dasavataracarita, Ksemendra
invokes Ananta along with Visnu for the welfare of the people.
In the said verse, by applying the ingenious method of double
entendre, the poet identifies Ananta with Visnu ; the man is
portrayed thus : He is graceful, the performer of acts un¬
precedented, assuming various forms—the forms of matsya,
kurma, etc. (that is to say, adopting various diplomatic devices
such as may be characterized by ‘matsya’ representing quick,
subde and imperceptible movement, and by ‘kurma’ signifying
self-withdrawal and apparent suspension of movement, and so
on) ; he has his heart containing the best of qualities * he
possesses the marks of sankha (the emblem of auspiciousness)
and cakra (the emblem of moral order) revealed in himself ;
he is the ocean of treasures. 12
Ksemendra’s son, Somendra too gives a splendid picture
of Ananta’s achievement as the sovereign ruler of Kashmir
and as a lord of the people. In a single verse 18 he has left
for us an inspired resume' of king Ananta’s glorious career,
referring probably to the episode narrated in the Rajatarau-
gini of the defeat and slaughter of the Darad king, Acala-
mafigala by Ananta’s general, Rudrapala. 14 The verse states
that on account of his conquest of his evil enemy (enemies)
[or, the enemies of evils] he earned a fame which frowned
upon the stars and that there was generated a blessed zeal all
around. The verse also suggests that the people lived in bliss
and prosperity under Ananta’s rule.
74
Ksemendra
Ksemendra’s junior contemporary ^ Somadeva Bhatta, in
the epilogue to his Kathasaritsagara, 15 describes Ananta as a
wish-yielding tree in the family of the celebrated king,
Samgrarnaraja. The poet describes him further as a paramount
monarch holding sway over countless rulers who bent their
heads low in paying their obeisance to him. He was a store
of valour and a terror to his enemies.
Bilhana, another junior contemporary of Ksemendra, in
the last and eighteenth Canto of his famous poem, Vikraman-
kadevacarita, presents an animating account of Ananta’s
glorious expeditions and generous benefactions and acclaims
the king as embodying the culmination of all noble qualities,
viz., truth, sacrifice, etc. 16
The accounts of Ananta’s career and character as given
by Ksemendra, Somendra, Somadeva and Bilhana cannot in¬
deed claim full corroboration in the Rajatarangini; and by
virtue of their very mode and spirit of presentation they read
more like poetry than history. Nevertheless, it must be
admitted that those poetic accounts compared with the histo¬
rian Kalhana’s records give us a glimpse of the 'fact that an
important period of Kremendra’s literary activity during Ananta’s
reign witnessed zeal and prosperity in the Valley of Kashmir,
no matter whether the blessings of the period in question
are credited to King Ananta or to his illustrious wife,
Suryamati or to Prime Minister Haladhara or to all combined.
About Ananta’s son, Kalasa, Ksemendra is almost silent.
As stated above, he mentions him only once and that in the
last concluding verse of his last-dated work, Dasavataracarita,
where Kalasa is referred to merely as the king of Kashmir
under whose reign the abovcnamed work was completed. In
the Rajatarangini (VII. 233-723), Kalasa, for the most part
of his career, has been painted very black. Nursed all
through by the blind affection of his mother Suryamatl, Kalasa,
in his very early years, lived a life rendered completely
abominable by indulgence in licentious acts, intrigues and hos¬
tilities with his father, and subsequently with his own son*
The Ruling Kings
75
too. He had a sudden emergence, after his parents’ tragic
death, into glowing uprise which lasted for a few years, and
finally he sank down even below the level of animals and
met premature death.
Somadeva, however, praises Kalasa as follows :
Ksmamaiidalaikatilako’ pyanalikalagno
Yasya ghanamrtamayo gunibandhavo’pi /
Vidvesiparsadasivo’pi Sivavatarah
Sriman sutah Kalasadeva iti ksitisah / / 17
Bilhana too gives an eulogistic account of Kalasa, which
consists in an agreeable description of the latter’s physical
charm, valour and scholarship. 18 From the said account, the
following two verses may be culled as specimens :
Digyatrasu sphatikavisadacchayam Acchodametva
Bhramyannindrayudhakhuraputottankitasu sthalisu /
Kadamvaryah parijanamasau martyalokaikacandras-
Candrapidastutisu vidadhe samkucadvagvilasam / / 19
Yasyodaram parikalayatah sastrasastrapratistham
Dve preyasyau jagati vidite Srisca Vagdevata ca /
Eka bheje bhujamabhinavambhodanilatapatra
Svetacchattrayitasitayasascandrikanya mukhendum / / 20
Somadeva is supposed to have composed his Kathasarit-
sagara in between 1063 and 1081 A.D., 21 and Bilhana his
Vikramankadevacarita in the eighth decade of the eleventh
century. 22 As is rightly observed in N.M. Penzer’s edition
of C. H. Tawney’s “The Ocean of Story”, 23 the history of
Kashmir at this period is one of discontent, intrigue, blood¬
shed and despair ; it is a long unfortunate tragic tale of the
worthless degenerate life of the misguided Kalasa, the brilliant
but ruthless life of Harsa, the suicide of Ananta himself and
resulting chaos as recorded in the Rajatarangini; this forms
76
Ksemcndra
as dark and grim a background for the setting of Somadeva’s
tales as did the plague of Florence for Boccaccio’s Cento
Novelle nearly three hundred years later. Somadeva’s verse
as quoted above, which breathes an air of great reverence for
Kalasa, is therefore strangely inconsistent with reality. For
this apparent mispresentation of fact, Somadeva may well be
excused in consideration of his natural allegiance, as a court
poet which he probably was, to the royal family ruling over
Kashmir during the period in question. It is perhaps this
obligation on the part of Somadeva, which necessarily shut
his eyes to the evil and inglorious affairs of the family and
made him sing in the conventional strain melodious notes of
highflown praise to his ruling king and the other important
members of the royal family. Bilhana, however, when he
wrote the Vikramankadevacarita, lived far away from his
homeland, Kashmir, and served a different master. His
account of Kalasa, as given in the said book, may be explained
to have been inspired by a purely romantic attachment, just
as is usual for a sojourning poet, for his dear distant mother¬
land and also for the members of the royal family ruling over
there. Bilhana, in fact, gives merely a sweet vision of
Kalasa’s physical charm and a brief account of his heroic
adventure and describes his passion for both Sri and Vagdevi.
All this captivates our heart like a tale told by a poet without
antagonising history. Ksemendra’s attitude to Kalasa, which
is apparently different from that of either Somadeva or Bilhana,
deserves to be specially noted. Ksemendra records his recog¬
nition of Kalasa only once and that, as already mentioned,
in the last concluding verse of the Dasavataracarita, where the
poet simply announces the date of completion of the work
associating it with the name of the then ruling king of Kashmir,
that is Kalasa. Kalasa who died in 1089 A.D. at the age
of forty-nine was evidently a young man of about twenty-six
at the time of composition of the Dasavataracarita which was
finished in 1066 A.D. Kalasaka as quoted by Ksemendra in
the Suvrttatilaka (II. 14) has been identified by some scholars
with Kalasa, son of Anantaraja. 24 Since the exact date of
composition of the Suvrttatilaka cannot be affirmed as yet,
we cannot fix up with exactitude the lower limit for the date
The Ruling Kings
77
of composition of the verse attributed to Kalasaka and quoted
by Ksemendra in his said work. The maturity of style and
thought as manifest in the verse under reference would,
however, incline us to believe that the author of the verse
must have been also mature in age when he wrote it. But,
if according to the supposition of scholars in general, the
Suvrttatilaka is placed chronologically prior to the Aucityavica-
racarca and is assigned a date near about 1050 A.D.,
Kalasa, son of king Ananta, who is the supposed author of the
verse referred to, it follows, was a young boy about ten
years old when he composed the verse in question ; and this
would indicate very well the fact that Kalasa, while yet a
tender boy, gave the promise of a talented poet. It is indeed
significant that Ksemendra says not a single word in praise
of Kalasa whose name he mentions without even the most
usual and traditional epithet of honour, viz., the auspicious
‘Sri’ attached to it. It is no doubt a striking contrast embodied
in the fact that while the last concluding verse of the Dasa-
vataracarita contains merely a cut and dried reference to king
Kalasa, in the initial concluding verse of the same book
Ksemendra bursts forth into an impassioned invocation to the
kind Ananta as well as to Lord Vbfnu. The latter verse strikes
a note of something like a plaintive appeal to Providence for
peace and prosperity in Kashmir to be ushered in by Ananta’s
benign administration. It appears that Ksemendra had little
regard for Kalasa who was at that period the declared king of
Kashmir and that for the welfare of the land the old poet
anxiously looked still to Ananta who was not pulling on
well with Kalasa in whose favour he had abdicated. Since
his very early age Kalasa, as we know, became notorious for
his licentious habits. Ksemendra who is manifestly a stout
advocate of piety and moral purity must, therefore, have
developed a strong distaste for the astrayed Kalasa, and ulti¬
mately, a feeling of helpless compassion for his pride and folly
and the consequent humiliation and wreakage of personality.
Chapter Seven
DID HE ENJOY ROYAL PATRONAGE?
The question as to whether Ksemendra enjoyed royal patro¬
nage, as Dr. Suryakanta observes, 1 is hard to decide. Pt. M. S.
Kaul Shastri 2 and Dr. M. Krishnamachariar, 3 however, hold
that Ksemendra was in the Court of King Ananta who was
his patron. Dr. A. Sharma and his colleagues do also believe
that Ksemendra was a prote'ge' of King Ananta and further
that he was patronised by Kalasa too. 4 Ksemendra has been
described as Ananta’s ‘Sabha-Pandita’ by Acarya Ramacandra
Misra. 5 There are scholars, again, and their number is not
small, who in spite of their clear admission that Ksemendra’s
literary career beginning under the long rule of Ananta was
prolonged and came to an end under his son Kalasa, have
made no mention as to whether the poet enjoyed any royal
honour or the patronage of either Ananta or Kalasa or both. 6
There is really no clear evidence to show that Ksemendra
was ever a court-poet under Ananta, king of Kashmir.
Although both Ksemendra and his son, Somendra have devoted
several complimentary verses to King Ananta, neither of them
has said anything, even indirectly, to indicate that the king
was a patron of poets or that Ksemendra was a prote'ge' of
him. It cannot, however, be urged that because Ksemendra
wrote some stanzas in praise of King Ananta, he was necessari¬
ly a court-poet under the patronage of that king. It is indeed
a fact that the writing of eulogies was but a conventional
practice with ancient Indian poets in general who delighted in
using hyperbolic language in honour of kings and principalities,
especially of those ruling over the land cf their birth and
activity ; but, in the case of Ksemendra, it was perhaps also a
genuine appreciation of Ananta’s valour and virtues that pro¬
mpted the poet to write some verses in his praise. It may
be noticed that Bilhana, too, who composed his famous
Royal Patronage
79
panegyric poem, Vikramankadevacarita, in honour of his
patron and protector. King Vikramaditya Tribhuvanamalla of
Kalyana, provided in the same work a long account in praise
of Ananta, his wife Suryamati, their son Kalasa and grandson
Harsa, with whom obviously the poet had no relation but that
they belonged to the royal family then ruling over Kashmir,
his native land. Both Bilhana and Somadeva have praised
Ananta for valour and many virtues, but neither of them
mentions him as a patron of poets. Kalhana who recognises
Ksemendra as a poet does not describe him as having enjoyed
royal favour, nor does the great historian in his rather long
and detailed account of Ananta mention Ksemendra or any¬
body else as a court-poet under the king, although in the
Rajataraiigini we come across names of kings whom Kalhana
describes as patrons of letters and also of scholars and poets
who enjoyed royal patronage. 7 As mentioned before, 8 there
occurs in Ksemendra’s Suvrttatilaka a verse attributed to one
Kalasaka who is supposed to be identical with Kalasa, son of
King Ananta. As it follows from the supposition generally
entertained by scholars in regard to the probable place of the
book in the chronological order of Ksemendra’s works, the
Suvrttatilaka was composed several years before 1059 A.D.,
the date of composition of Aucityavicaracarca, 9 that is to say,
at a time when Ananta was the ruling king and in the height
of his glory, and Kalasa a young boy still in the warm embrace
of filial affection. The verse in question, quoted by Ksemen¬
dra in his Suvrttatilaka, appears there as an example of a
bad type of Rathoddhata metre which, ‘having no visarga at
the end of its feet, lacks lustre, like a proud woman whose
pride has been humbled and who shows attachment without
being importuned.’ This is no doubt a significant fact which
constitutes a potent opposition to any conjectured probability
of Ksemendra having been in the court of King Ananta.
Ksemendra was a dignified poet, who had evidently attained
maturity in age and poetry at the time of writing the Suvrttati¬
laka. Supposing that the poet had been then enjoying directly
the favour and patronage of King Ananta and necessarily of
his illustrious wife Suryamati too, it can hardly be conceived
how he (Ksemendra) could have the zeal to present, by way of
80
Ksemewlra
illustrating an inferior type of metrical composition, none else
than a budding poet, the young beloved son of the royal
couple, who was naturally entitled to the poet’s affection and
encouragement rather than censure and criticism.
As he advanced in years, Kalasa grew to be a scholar
and a reputed poet too. This is but evident from Bilhana’s
allusion to him as already mentioned by us 10 and the fact
that he has been quoted in some of the important antholo¬
gies, viz., Sarngadharapaddhati, Vallabhadeva’s Subha&itavall
and Jalhana’s Suktimuktavall. 11 But whether Kalasa was as
• >
well a patron of scholars and poets cannot be ascertained from
either Bilhana or Kalhana or any other source known to us.
excepting one single expression, i.e., ‘gunibandhavah’ 12 by Soma-
deva, which means that he (Kalasa) was a friend to men of
parts. According to Kalhana, again, in the period after 1062
A.D., the only true friends of poets were^ king Bhoja of Dhara
and Ananta’s brother-in-law, Ksitipati, lord of Lohara. 13 It re¬
mains also an open question why Bilhana left his native land in
search of adequate scope for his poetry and fortune, in the
period when Kalasa was perhaps a fullfledged king of Kashmir.
May we not suppose that the ambitious poet could have no
reason to harbour the hope for royal patronage under Kalasa’s
rule ? Be that as it may. The fact that Ksemendra had almost
reached the close of his career when Kalasa was made the
king and that the poet’s attitude to Kalasa is apparently one
of distaste and disgust and further that Somadeva, who com¬
posed the Kathasaritsagara to comfort Kalasa’s mother Surya-
mati 14 and had evidently great intimacy with the royal family,
does not make any mention of his senior contemporary,
Ksemendra, who was also his pioneer in epitomising the
Brhatkatha tales, would incline us to believe that Ksemendra
had never been in the court of Kalasa.
Ksemendra was a free man, financially and otherwise.
Neither did he need any material favour, nor did he seem
to have a craze for cheap popularity and honour that is gifted
or purchased. Poetry was not a mere pastime with him ; he
often employed the literary art as an instrument for impart-
Royal Patronage
81
ing instruction to the populace and for purging the contem¬
porary society of Kashmir of its evils and depravities. The
spirit of liberty and uprightness runs through his compositions
as a whole. All this would not prehaps have been possible
if he were a prote'ge' of a king, labouring under the obligation
of catering always to the sweet will and caprices of his master
only to receive favour and fortune as the price in exchange.
Ksemendra hated the profession of a bard or a court-poet and
felt very much for the sad unholy plight to which the Muses
are reduced by poets taking to that profession. The following
verse of Ksemendra will speak for itself :
Kavibhirnrpasevasu citralamkaraharinl /
Van! vesyeva lobhena paropakaranikrta / / 15
[By poets in their efforts to serve the king, VanI
(the goddess of learning), charming on account of
various embellishments, is, out of avarice, turned into
a material for (the pleasure of) others, like a prostitute
captivating (the mind) with diverse ornaments].
6
Chapter Eight
HIS TEACHERS AND ADVISERS
Ksemendra, manifestly with a sense of pride and grati¬
fication amply justified, records his association with Abhinava-
gupta who is undoubtedly one of the bright luminaries in the
firmament of Indian scholarship. Ksemendra studied Sahitya
under this great Acarya who is said to have had as many as
twelve hundred pupils. 1 Insatiable was Abhinava’s thirst for
knowledge. He studied under twenty different teachers. 2 In
the words of Dr. K. C. Pandey, “noble was his birth, loving
and gentle his temper, honest and rigorous his life, strong and
admirable his character, brilliant and highly useful his career,
memorable and lasting his contribution to both poetics and
philosophy_” s Dr. Pandey names Ksemendra as one of the
writers directly influenced by Abhinava. 4 Although Ksemen-
dra’s works bear a distinct stamp of his own apparently denying
the assumption of Abhinava’s direct influence on his literary
career, yet, it must be admitted, the poet’s character and moral
ideology as reflected in his works seem to owe their weight
and dimension largely to the influence of the great Abhinava-
gupta’s stupendous personality.
Dr. Pandey remarks that Ksemendra’s connection with
Abhinavagupta “cannot at all be said to have been so close
as that of Ksemaraja.” 5 In support of the above statement,
the learned scholar advances the following argument : he
(i.e. Ksemendra) refers to Abhinava, so far as we know, only
once i.e. in the Mahabhirata-Manjari, wherein he speaks of
having heard Abhinava’s lectures on poetics- We know
that even today there is a marked difference between Sisya
and Srota. The difference may be said to be similar to that
which exists in the present-day colleges between a registered
Teachers and Advisers
83
and a casual student.” 6 The above argument, in our opinion,
is open to the following objections :
•
(i) Ksemendra refers to Abhinava not only in the
Mahabharatamaiijari but in the Brhatkathamanjari
also, although the two verses regarding Abhinava
as available in the abovenamed works are identi¬
cal in every respect except that the two halves in
the one are transposed in the other.
(ii) It is perhaps not always by the mere statistical
method applied to references by different persons
about a man that their relative intimacy with that
particular man can be rightly determined. The
right conclusion in such cases may rather be
obtained from a comparative study of the tone
and spirit of the references as well as of other
evidences, if any, reflecting the mutual relation in
actual and cultural spheres of life.
(iii) It is difficult to draw a permanent line of distinc¬
tion between a Sisya and a Srotr. A Sisya is
invariably a Srotr, and a Srotr is not necessarily
one other than a Sisya. The Upanisadic injunc¬
tion, “Srotavyo Mantavyo Nididhyasitavyah”, enjoins
Sravana as the first essential duty for a deserving
disciple intent on attaining to the knowledge of
the Self. The act of Sravana performed in the
right spirit and in the right manner justifies one’s
relation as a regular Sisya with one’s teacher. In
Ksemendra’s statement: “Srutvabhinavaguptakhyat
sahityarh bodha-varidheh/Acaryasekharamanervidya-
vivrtikarinah / /”, the fifth case-ending in ‘Acarya-
sekharamaneh’, conveying the sense of Apaddnakd-
raka, indicates that the great Acarya Abhinava-
gupta was Ksemendra’s Akhyatr or teacher in the
true sense of the term, implying the sense of
Upayoga (i.e. Niyamapurvakavidyasvikdra ) on the
part of his pupil, Ksemendra. 7 Hence, in the light
84 Ksemendra
of grammatical law also, the verse quoted above
indicates that Ksemendra was no less a regular
pupil of Abhinava than Ksemaraja or anybody else
was. It may be noted that Ksemaraja also, in a
concluding verse of his Spanda-Sandoha, while
recording his indebtedness to his teacher, Abhi¬
nava, describes himself as his Srotr in a fashion
similar to that followed by Ksemendra in the
verse given above. 8
In our opinion, therefore, Ksemendra was not only an
ardent admirer but a regular student of Abhinava from whom
he received lessons in poetry and poetics, if not in other
subjects also. In spite of the fact that Ksemendra unlike
Ksemaraja and some others took to a different line of literary
pursuit best suited to his distinctive taste and temperament
and did not remain Abhinava’s follower in every sense of
the term, the poet cannot forsooth be said to have had with
his much-too-respected Acarya a connection which was very
casual and not at all close. Dr. P. V. Kane seems to have recog¬
nised the depth and sanctity of Ksemendra’s intimacy with his
teacher, Abhinavagupta. Thus, the learned scholar observes :
“In the Brhatkathamaniari he (i.e. Ksemendra) tells us that
he learnt Sahitya at the feet of Abhinavagupta .” 9 Dr. Subhadra
Jha also speaks of Ksemendra as a ‘disciple’ of Abhinava¬
gupta. 10 Dr. P. L. Vaidya too honestlv describes him as ‘a
pupil of Abhinavagupta,’ 11 apparently leaving no doubt re¬
garding the normalcy of Ksemendra’s relation as a pupil with
his teacher, Abhinava. Prof. Le'vi similarly does not appear
to have betrayed any hesitation in acknowledging the subsis¬
tence of a very normal and regular relation between Abhinava
and Ksemendra, when he says : “we find again the names
of some of his masters, the celebrated Abhinava.” 12 Dr.
Buhler and Prof. Peterson have both made a plain statement
to the effect that Ksemendra studied the Alamkarasastra under
the famous Abhinavaguptacarya, without raising any question
as to whether Ksemendra was a regular or casual student of
Abhinava. 13
Teachers and Advisers
85
In the Aucityavicaracarca there is mention of one
Gafigaka whom Ksemendra describes as his Upadhyaya. 14
Dr. P. V. Kane mentions his name as Bhatta Gangaka. 15 In
the available editions of the Aucityavicaracarca we come
across as many as eight names with the word ‘Bhatta’ prefixed
to them. 16 Of these, the names, Bhatta Prabhakara, Bhatta
Lattana, Bhatta Bhallata and Bhatta Tauta occur once each,
while each of the two names, Bhatta Narayana and Bhatten-
duraja, occurs twice and the name Bhatta Bana thrice, in the
same unaltered form, under different topics of illustration.
Similarly, of the other names which are without the word
‘Bhatta’ prefixed to them and are mentioned more than once
in the text, none presents a case of any change in its form.
It is only the name ‘Bhavabhuti’ which is mentioned twice as
‘Bhavabhuti’ but once as ‘Bhatta Bhavabhuti’. Barring this
single exception, there exists not a single case to exhibit lack
of consistency on the part of poet Ksemendra in giving the
different name-forms in the text under reference. Hence,
the absence of ‘Bhatta’ as a prefix to the name ‘Gangaka’ as
mentioned by Ksemendra should not be taken as a case of
careless omission on the part of the poet. Got by heredity or
acquired by personal merit, ‘Bhatta’ is usually recognised as
a title of honour indicating great scholarship. Ksemendra in
naming his respected teacher, Gangaka would not in all proba¬
bility have dropped this title if he (i.e. Gangaka) had really
owned it. It would not, therefore, be proper to accept
‘Bhatta Gangaka’ as a genuine and innocent substitute for the
name ‘Gangaka’. The name ‘Bhattagangana’ as given by Dr.
Subhadra Jha 17 appears to be a confused form of the real
name ‘Gangaka’. It may be mentioned in this connection
that Prof. Peterson, 18 Prof. Le'vi, 19 Dr. Aufrecht, 20 Pt. Kaul, 21
Dr. Suryakanta, 22 Dr. A. Sharma along with his colleagues, 28
and others including Mr. N. N. Vasu, 24 Dr. P. L. Vaidya 25
and Dr. Krishnamachariar 26 have all given the name as
‘Gangaka’ and not as ‘Bhatta Gafigaka’ or ‘Bhattagangana’.
Dr. P. V. Kane describes Gangaka as Ksemendra’s ‘guru’. 27
It is not clear what Dr. Kane means to signify by the term
‘guru’ here. A ‘guru’ is defined by Manu thus : Nisekadlni
86
Ksemendra
karmani yah karoti yathavidhi/Sambhavayati cannena sa vipro
gururucyate 28 / / We have no reason to suppose that Gangaka
was Ksemendra’s ‘guru’ in the above sense of the term.
According to Manu, as upadhyaya who renders service to a
person by imparting instruction in any subject, whether such
instruction is of a considerable amount or not, is also called
a ‘guru’ and should be treated as such. 29 In the light of the
above explanation of the term in question, there cannot be
any objection to saying that Gangaka was Ksemendra’s guru.
According to Ksemendra’s own version, however, Gangaka
was his ‘upadhyaya’. It is not known whether Ksemendra
uses the term ‘upadhyaya’ in this connection in its strictly
technical sense as given in the Manusamhita. 30 Whether it
was Veda or Vedahga or Sahitya or any other subject that
Ksemendra studied under Gangaka, it is quite evident that the
poet received useful training under him, for Ksemendra makes
a respectful mention of Gangaka expressly pronouncing him
as his teacher. It is not unlikely that Gangaka was his paid
teacher, for a paid teacher, according to Dharmasastra, is
called an upadhyaya, 31 and Ksemendra had the means to
spend adequately for proper education. That Gangaka was
not a teacher only but a poet too can be guessed from the
evidence of literary faculty as contained in his single known
verse which Ksemedra quotes in the Aucityavicaracarca as an
example of propriety of benedictory expressions. The verse
is as follows :
Sa ko’pi premardrah pranayaparipakapracalito
Vilaso’ksnam deyat sukharnanupamam vo mrgadrsam /
Yadakutam drstvapidadhati mukham tunavivare
Nirastavyapara bhuvanajayinah pancavisikhah / /
[Dr. Suryakanta renders the above verse into English
thus : May that indescribable play of the eyes of the
fawn-eyed ladies grant you unparallelled joy—the play
of the eyes which is steeped in love and throbbing
with the intensity of affection and seeing whose wond¬
rous (deeds'), (love’s) five arrows which conquered
Teachers and Advisers
87
the world, relinquishing their work, hide their faces
in the quiver.—Ksemendra Studies, p. 170.]
It is indeed a fine verse in the Sikharini metre, sweetly -
jingling with unconceited alliteration, decently couched in an
unassuming language, not stuffed with external embellish¬
ments but replete with suggestion and easy appeal, standing
alone as a granite testimony to Gangaka’s maturity as a poet.
Prof. Le'vi has paid him his appropriate tribute by mention¬
ing Gangaka as ‘the poet Gangaka’. 32 From the tone and
contents of the verse as quoted above it appears that it is
probably not a stray verse but a part of a complete
work now lost to us. As in the case of many other authors
whom he has quoted, Ksemendra has not given the name of
the work where the verse in question occurs. Probably the
supposed original containing the verse was a treatise on Sex-
science or a book of verses extolling and expounding the ravels
of the god of Love and the excitants and associates thereof
or a book like Damodaragupta’s Kuttanimata, the first verse 33
of which calls forth a comparison with Gangaka’s verse under
discussion. As regards Gangaka’s identity, the following
observation by Dr. Survakanta deserves notice : “We find no
man of exactly the same name in the Rajatarangini. However,
one Ganga is mentioned as a friend of king Sangramaraja who
ruled during 1003-28 A.D. He died soon after his friend’s
accession. The identification is open to no serious objection.” 34
Ksemendra expresses his sincerest adoration for Soma, 35
an Acarya of the Bhagavata school, whom he honoured perhaps
more than he did Abhinavagupta. 36 By the (grace of the)
pollen-dust of Soma’s lotus-feet, as the poet gratefully puts
it, he, having had Narayana as his supreme resort, attained
the highest value of his life. May it not be supposed that
Ksemendra’s son, Somendra (the name ‘Somendra’ being obvi¬
ously formed by the combination of ‘Soma’ and ‘Indra’) was
so named by his father just out of an emotional fondness
cherished by the latter for the holy name of his revered
teacher, i.e., Soma? The verse containing Ksemendra’s ex¬
pression of respect for this Soma, which is given below in the
88
Ksemendra
foot-note 35 , occurs, as is also noted there, in the Mahabharata-
manjari as well as in the Brhatkathamanjari ; and in both the
works the said verse comes immediately after the one which
speaks of Ksemendra’s teacher, Abhinavagupta. It is to be
noticed that these two verses are not, from the syntactical
point of view, mutually independent, but that, when read
together and interpreted with special regard to the implication
of the suffix ‘ktvac’ 37 in ‘srutva’ occurring in the verse referring
to Abhinava, the verses referred to would of grammatical
necessity indicate that Ksemendra came in contact with Soma
after he had completed his course of study in Sahitya under
Abhinava. According to Pt. M. S. Kaul Shastri, 38 Dr. P. L.
Vaidya, 39 Dr. A. Sharma 40 and others, Ksemendra received
higher education from Acarya Soma as much from Acarya
Abhinavagupta and Upadhvaya Gahgaka. Mr. N. N. Vasu in
his Visvakosa observes that Ksemendra studied ‘Dharma-
Sastra’ with Soma. Prof. Le'vi says : ‘Ksemendra’s early years
were loyal to the Saivite cult of which his father had been
a fervent devotee. But later on he converted himself to
Vaisnavism and received from the noted Acarya Soma the
doctrine of the Bhagavatas’. 41 Le'vi does not appear to have
recognised in clear terms the absolute agency of Soma in the
matter of Ksemendra’s conversion to Vaisnavism. He rather
seems to be of the belief that the poet leaned towards Vaisna-
vism independently of Soma who, however, initiated him into
the Bhagavata cult of the particular religious faith by inter¬
preting the doctrine to the poet’s entire satisfaction and
securing his happy conviction in it. Ksemendra’s scope of
education received from Soma, according to Le'vi’s observation
as above, was confined to religion only. According to the
statements of Dr. P. V. Kane 42 and Dr. Suryakanta, 43 Soma’s
role in relation to Ksemendra seems to have been exclusively
that of one converting the poet to the Vasnava faith. Pt. M. S.
Kaul Shastri also believes that ‘he (i.e. Ksemendra) leaned
towards the Vaisnavism under the influence of Soma Bhaga¬
vata.’ 44 Dr. Buhler says : ‘Ksemendra himself seems to have
been in his youth a Saiva, but later he was converted to
Vaisnava-Bhagavata creed by Somacarya.’ 45 Dr. Krishnama-
chariar too does not say anything more in this regard than
Teachers and Advisers
89
that ‘Ksemendra became Vaisnava Bhagavata under the teach¬
ings of Acarya Soma.’ 46 According to E. Krishnamacharya
also, ‘Ksemendra got initiation in the Bhagavata cult front
Soma.’ 47
A plain analysis of Ksemendra's verse referring to Soma
(fn. 35) hardly gives us anything else than the following
points : (i) Soma was a teacher of the Bhagavata school;
(ii) Ksemendra was immensely benefited by his contact with
Acarya Soma whom he held in high esteem ; and (iii) Nara-
yana was the be-all and end-all of Ksemendra’s existence.
Knit into a whole, again, the above points would give us a
glimpse of Ksemendra’s religious life and suggest his religio-
academic relation with Soma. The verse in question provides
no tangible ground for us to believe that it was Soma who
converted Ksemendra to Vaisnavism or that it was this Acarya
whose influence or instruction was solely responsible for the
adoption by Ksemendra of the Bhagavata cult. As there is
nothing clearly stated in the verse under discussion or else¬
where regarding Soma’s specific contribution in the matter of
Ksemendra’s conversion or his evolution of religious faith and
practice, it may quite reasonably be supposed that Ksemendra
by his own temperamental inclination possibly stimulated by
some internal and external factors got initiated into the
Vaisnava faith and that he discovered in Soma the true guide
of his choice under whom probably he studied various Sastras
bearing on religion and other allied topics. Dr. T. Aufrecht
remarks : ‘Ksemendra learned Sahitva from Abhinavagupta
and religion from Soma.’ 48 It would be in the fitness of things
to suppose that the truth-seeking Ksemendra got enlightenment
from Soma’s teachings and that the poet’s pining, peace-loving
heart got support and solace by contact with the Acarya’s
holy personality. Pt. Kaul observes : ‘Abhinavagupta and
Soma were his (i.e. Ksemendra’s) teachers not only in the
secular studies but also in the spiritual realm . 10 There is
obviously nothing in Ksemendra’s statement to show that
Abhinava was his teacher in the spiritual realm also, although
nobody can at once gainsay the possibility of Abhinava’s spiri¬
tual ideas having wielded remarkable influence in fashioning
90
Ksemendra
the mental make-up of his young devoted pupil, Ksemendra.
Pt. Kaul has, in fact, categorically remarked that ‘his (i.e.
Ksemendra’s) admiration for Saivism was further enkindled by
the teaching of Abhinavagupta .’ 50 Ksemendra’s statement re¬
garding Soma, again, evidently suggests the holy relation of an
inspired disciple and his respected teacher subsisting between
them (i.e., Ksemendra and Soma), and further contains nothing
to oppose the probability that Soma was his teacher not only
in the religious or spiritual realm in its ceremonial or devo¬
tional aspect but also in academic matters relating to religion
or spiritualism as well as to secular topics. Considering the
young age of the budding poet who had then just embarked,
with determinate potential force, on his own ambitious career
of a poet, the diversity of his interest and his comprehensive
genius as evidenced by his entire literary production, it would
perhaps be harbouring too narrow an idea to think that Kse¬
mendra after coming in contact with Soma forgot himself and
the whole world around him and got immersed in religion or
spiritualism only.
It may be pointed out that the name of the above
mentioned teacher of Ksemendra has been rightly given as
Soma by Prof. S. Le'vi , 51 Dr. T. Aufrecht 52 and Pt. M. S.
Kaul Shastri . 53 Dr. G. Buhler , 54 Dr. P. V. Kane , 55 Dr. M.
Krishnamachariar , 56 Dr. A. Sharma and others 57 who call
him Somacarya probably mean the same name, for, strictly
speaking, ‘Somacarya’ may be taken not as a proper name by
itself but as a word formed by combining the proper name
‘Soma’ with ‘Acarya’ as a title of honour. E. Krishnama-
charya, too, perhaps means ‘Soma’ to be the real name of the
teacher, whom he calls ‘Somadeva’, the word ‘deva’ having
probably been attached to ‘Soma’ just as a mark of respect for
the esteemed Acarya . 58 Dr. Suryakanta, however, gives the
name as Somapada . 59 Mr. N. N. Vasu also seems to have
taken ‘Somapada’ as the name of the teacher . 60 This appears
to be an error probably caused by a confusion in respect of
the meaning and the connection of the word ‘pada’ as it occurs
along with ‘Soma’ and ‘Avja’ in Ksemendra’s verse 61 referring
to this teacher of his. The first half of the verse consists
Teachers and Advisers
91
of a single compounded expression wherein evidently the two
feet of Soma are identified with a pair of lotuses and the two
words ‘Somapada’ and ‘Avia’ are combined together in the
so-called Rupaka-Samasa under the provision of the rule
‘Mayiiravyamsakadayasca .’ 62 If ‘Somapada’ is considered, as
it is actually done by some scholars named above, to be the
real name of the Acarya, with ‘pada’ as an elemental part of
it, the expression in question would invariably present a serious
difficulty in getting at a sensible interpretation of the same,
for in that case the Acarya himself bearing the supposed name
‘Somapada’ has to be identified with a lotus, whereby the whole
expression would offer a meaning not only contrary to con¬
vention but also repugnant to sense and imagination. It is
also deserving of notice that Dr. P. L. Vaidya 63 gives the name
as ‘Somapala.’ Whether ‘Somapala’ is the fuller form of the
Acarya’s name which is given merely as ‘Soma’ in the verse
under discussion or whether Dr. Vaidya reads ‘pala’ for the
word, ‘pada’ as it occurs compounded with ‘Soma’ in the said
verse, is not known to us. In the absence of any tradition yet
available or some concrete evidence in support, we cannot
possibly accept the name ‘Somapala’ for ‘Soma’; nor can we
for the sake of a sensible interpretation of the verse in question
entertain ‘pala’ as a variant permissible for ‘pada’ in the said
verse.
In the Brhatkathamanjari 64 there is mention of one Deva-
dhara at whose command Ksemendra composed the said
epitome of Gunadhya’s tales. According to the words of
Ksemendra, Devadhara seems to have been a man of vast
scholarship, occupying an eminent position in the Brahmanical
community of contemporary Kashmir. Prof. Le'vi names
Devadhara as one of Ksemendra’s friends . 63 Dr. Suryakanta,
however, thinks that he was probably Ksemendra’s teacher . 66
In consideration of his learning and position in society and,
in particular, of Ksemendra’s absolute obedience to his order,
it may be argued that Devadhara was not perhaps a mere
‘friend’ of Ksemendra but that he (i.e. Devadhara) enjoyed a
superior position in relation to the poet. Obviously he was
a pretty senior man of a higher order having the privilege of
92
Ksemendra
dictating the cultural activities within his circle. Ksemendra
does not say anything definitely as to whether Devadhara was
his teacher in any subject or subjects. But it is quite evident
that the poet had close contact wih this great scholar of strik¬
ing personality whose instruction and inspiration put the poet
under a debt of gratitude and academic allegiance. The com¬
position by Ksemendra of a voluminous work like the Brhat-
kathamanjari owes its prime urge to Devadhara ; perhaps
Devadhara was not alive when Ksemendra advanced further
in his line of literary activity, for, otherwise, he (Devadhara)
might have been similarly associated with the composition of
some more works of the poet.
In his introduction to the Avadanakalpalata, Ksemendra’s
son Somendra, while giving his brief but precious account of
the incidents connected with the composition of the first 107
chapters of the said work of Ksemendra, mentions one Vlryab-
hadra 67 who seems to have been a scholar in Buddhistic litera¬
ture and philosophy and perhaps also a Buddhist himself.
Somendra speaks very highly of Viryabhadra whom he des¬
cribes as an Acarya shining with wisdom and glowing with
good deeds of great renown, with his mind deeply absorbed
in and completely dedicated to the study of the Sastras dealing
with the teachings of the Buddha. Ksemendra was immensely
helped by this great savant in his prosecution of studies in
the profound Buddhistic philosophy. By saying that Viryab¬
hadra acted like a ‘Ratna-Pradipa’ unto Ksemendra in the
latter’s treading the path of this difficult philosophy, Somendra
obviously compares him to ‘Ratoa’ (jewel) serving the purpose
of a ‘Pradipa’ (lamp), ns evidently signifying thereby that
Viryabhadra was the worthiest of the members of his com¬
munity of the day, being effulgent with the eternal brilliance
of knowledge dispelling the darkness of ignorance around the
Buddhistic lore. It is stated that Viryabhadra, of his own
accord, visited Ksemendra’s house and extended his best assis¬
tance in the matter of the poet’s enterprise for preparing a
compilation of the Avadanas. This not only bespeaks
Viryabhadra’s academic generosity which was spontaneous but
also perhaps indicates prior existence of Ksemendra’s close
Teachers and Advisers
95
relation with this great scholar as also the poet's genuine crav¬
ing for knowledge which knew no vanity and succeeded in
collecting the benign influence and useful guidance of almost
all the living masters of the time and the place he belonged to.
Regarding this VIryabhadra, Dr. Survakanta observes as
follows : “VIryabhadra appears in Somendra’s introduction to
the Avadanakalpalata only as an authority on Buddhistic texts.
Obviously he held no high office either in the royal circles
or at the viharas, otherwise Somendra must have mentioned
his office. The Rajatarangini also ignores VIryabhadra.'’™
Dr. Suryakanta seems here to have confused absence of evi¬
dence in favour of some hypothesis with evidence against it.
Usually, we cannot, indeed, deny a thing categorically on the
exclusive ground that there is no specific evidence to prove
it. In our opinion, Somendra's silence on the question of
VIryabhadra’s office ought not to be construed necessarily to
mean that VIryabhadra held no high office either in the royal
circles or at the viharas. The fact that the Rajatarangini does
not mention him need not also likewise be interpreted to indi¬
cate that he has been ignored by Kalhana for the simple alleged
reason that he did not hold any important office in the political
or religious sphere of Kashmir. There is evidently no legiti¬
mate ground for assuming that the Rajatarangini, besides ful¬
filling its own avowed purpose, is further designed to be an
encyclopaedia of names of all persons holding high office in
the land of Kashmir during the period within its purview,
irrespective of their bearing on the history narrated in the
book. It would, therefore, perhaps be meet and right, in the
present state of our knowledge, to refrain from pronouncing
a definite verdict on the point at issue.
According to a statement of the poet himself, Ksemendra
was ‘Sarvamanlsi-sisya’ 70 As pointed out by some scholars.
‘Sarvamanlsi’ may be variously interpreted : ‘as a proper name,
as an epithet to Gangakopadhyaya and as a reference to all
the eminent scholars under whom Ksemendra had studied.’ 71
The proper form of the word in question, for the matter of
the above argument, should preferably be ‘Sarvamanisin’ and
not ‘Sarvamanlsi’ as given by Dr. A Sharma, 72 for, even if
'94
Ksemendra
the word is regarded as a proper name, there is certainly no
reason why as a component part of the compound, ‘Sarva-
manlsisisyah’, the form ‘Sarvamanisi’—a meaningless word by
itself, no better than such name-forms as ‘Dittha’, ‘Davittha’,
etc.—should be accepted by us to the rejection of the equally
possible and at the same time perfectly normal and meaningful
form ‘Sarvamanisin’. Further, the assumed basic form ‘Sarva¬
manisi’ (as given by Dr. Sharma) which does not carry any
meaning by itself is far from consistent with the other two
interpretations suggested in respect of the expression, ‘Sarva-
manisisisyah’. 73 The interpretations referred to would, how¬
ever, fit in very well with the meaning of the proposed form,
‘Sarvamanisin’.
As a proper name, indeed, the word, ‘Sarvamanisin’ seems
to be a bit queer. There is also no further mention by the
poet of this supposed teacher of his, nor is there any reference
to him available either in Somendra’s account or elsewhere.
It must, however, be admitted that the case cannot be mooted
out merely on the above grounds. It may be conjectured that
‘Sarvamanisin’ is not really a proper name but an appellative
title used to denote some renowned scholar of the time. But,
in any case, whether the word is deemed as a proper name or
an appellative title denoting a particular' scholar-teacher, it
seems strange how Ksemendra could indulge thus in making
a sudden and apparently purposeless mention of a particular
personality without providing any clear reference to his identity
or an account to throw some light upon him. As is evident
from the poet’s usual Vay of , recounting his relation with some
other personalities, e.g., Abhinava, Soma, Devadhara, etc., it
seems not to be credible that Ksemendra would thus present
in a hasty and unceremonious fashion a respectable personality
instead of introducing him properly to us. It may, however,
be fancied that Sarvamanisin, though a forgotten name now,
was in the time of Ksemendra too famous a person to need
any introduction or that the supposed man after that name
was not a public figure but was one to whom Ksemendra was
probably related as his disciple in private spiritual matters
only, so that the devout poet considered it his duty just to
Teachers and Advisers
95
pronounce the holy name and describe himself as his ‘sisya’
without going into the details about the guru's worldly identity
and merits.
In support of the suggested interpretation making ‘Sar¬
vamanlsin’ an epithet of Gangaka, nothing more can perhaps
be said than that the name of Ksemendra’s teacher, Gahgaka is
mentionec} in the same work (i.e., Aucityavicaracarca) where
the poet’s particular expression, ‘Sarvamanisisisyah’ occurs and
that Gangaka is the only one of Ksemendra’s teachers, who is
mentioned in the said work and further that the mention of
Gangaka and the expression in question are not removed far
from each other. The possible argument as above is, however,
open to the following objections :
(i) If Ksemendra had at all the urge, in his conclusion
to the Aucityavicaracarca, to retell his relation
with Gangaka mentioned earlier in the book and
to record his respect for his scholarship, he might
well have done it in his usual style that is by
no means vague or covert.
(ii) If ‘Sarvamanlsin’ is supposed to be a significant
epithet of Gangaka, it would mean an unreserved
glorification by Ksemendra of this particular teacher
of his as superior to all other savants within his
knowledge; but then that would strike a note
of sharp discord against his earlier expressions of
great respect for some outstanding celebrities of
his time, viz., Abhinava, Soma and Devadhara, as
also for Vyasa whom he adored in the core of
his heart.
(iii) The name ‘Gangaka’ occurs in the body of the
book, whereas his supposed epithet ‘Sarvamanlsin’
is in its concluding portion which merely gives an
account of the poet’s parentage, and the time and
occasion of composition of the book, etc. Hence,
although attached to the book in question as its
96
Ksemendra
‘Upasamhara’, this portion has evidently a general
and independent import and intent of its own,
so that it would be improper not to allow an ex¬
pression occurring in that particular portion to
transcend the restricted range of reference and
implication covered by the said book alone.
In our opinion, the expression ‘Sarvamanisisisyah’ as used
by Ksemendra with reference to himself most probably refers
to the many eminent scholars with whom he had come in
close contact and studied different branches of literature and
also to all others, then living or dead, who had contributed to
the cause of advancement of learning. ‘Sarvamanisisisyah’, there¬
fore, means ‘a disciple of all savants’. This is perhaps the
only reasonable meaning which we can read in this adjunct.
Commenting on the adjunct in question, whereby Ksemendra
is supposed to have described himself as a devoted pupil of
all masters of learning. Dr. Suryakanta says : “Whether he
says this out of sheer humility or he really means it is hard
to decide. As he mentions three of his teachers, we may
conjecture that he had studied with other teachers too”. 74 By
temperament Ksemendra was evidently respectful to all scho¬
lars irrespective of time, place and creed. He also advocates
it as a principle to be followed by aspiring poets that “one
should be ready to be a pupil to all for the attainment of all¬
round scholarship.” 75 In his own life also, he was probably
true to his precept and practised his own tenets expounded
in the Kavikanthabharana. The versality of his genius as
expressed in his prolific writings and his own candid statements
attributing all the joy and success of his life to his propitiation
of scholars 76 rightly testify to the above supposition (regarding
the proper meaning of the adjunct under reference) which is
entertained also by Pt. M. S. Kaul Shastri. 77
Chapter Nine
HIS DEVOTION TO VYASA AND VALMIKI
Devotion to Vyasa was an abiding feeling, a fond passion
and a holy mission with Ksemendra. His second name ‘Vya-
sadasa’, as already noticed by us, 1 is obviously an apt and
adequate expression of this. The distinctive peculiarity of
the manner Vyasa’s name is mentioned by Ksemendra is rather
eloquent on his special admiration for Vyasa in preference to
all other poets and scholars who also enjoyed his due respect
and allegiance. Thus, in the Aucityavicaracarca, 2 Kavikantha-
bharana* and Suvrttatilaka, 4 Ksemendra refers to Vyasa with
the epithet ‘Bhagavat MaharsF or 'Bhagavat’ in the sense of
‘pujya’ attached to his name. 6 More than three score names
of different poets and scholars have been mentioned in the
abovenamed works ; and among them the name ‘Vyasa’ alone
has obviously received a uniformly special regard. This cannot
indeed be looked upon as an accident or something done by
the poet without any purpose or will. Apart from the consi¬
deration of uniformity as noted above in the special treatment
meted out to Vyasa’s name, in particular, there is also another
point in support of our contention, which we can hardly miss ;
and that is the poet’s uniform care about the proper way of
referring to different personalities and his sense of balance
untouched by emotion as revealed in the matter of pronouncing
their names. Thus, while the poet mentions some names often
in their original naked form probably because they are either
less known or extremely familiar or conventionally not associa¬
ted with any title of honour, 9 some other names, again, are
mentioned with some word or words indicating respect (e.g.,
Bhatta, Sri, Bhattalri) prefixed to them, 7 while princes, kings
and other dignitaries and his pupils and a teacher of his have
their names attended with expressions precisely designed to
indicate their distinctive status and personality. For Ksemen¬
dra, therefore, who thus manifestly maintains meticulous alert¬
ness about his own considered way of mentioning the many
and various names in the works referred to, it was certainly an
7
98
Ksemendra
imperative spiritual urge, in spite of his normal care for brevity
and precision, which caused him to signify his feeling of supreme
respect for, Vyasa by putting in the special adjuncts ‘Bhagavat’
and ‘Maharsi’ qualifying his (Vyasa’s) name.
Ksemendra marks out Vyasa’s place of distinction in the
field of literature by rightly describing him as ‘bhuvanopajivya’,
i.e., ‘a feeder for the whole world’. 9 The following verse
quoted by the poet speaks his appropriate assessment of the
supreme value of Vyasa’s Mahabharata which, as the verse
rightly puts it, is a source of materials adopted by all great
poets and is like a noble master who offers sustence to all
dependants desirous of attaining to prosperity:
Idarh kavivaraih sarvair
akhyanamupajivyate /
Udayam prepsubhir bhrtyair
abhijata ivesvarah // 10
Ksemendra’s appreciation of this unique value of Vyasa’s
Mahabharata and his great respect for Vyasa consequent thereon
finds further expression in his Mahabharatamanjari where the
initial verse of almost all the principal chapters 11 is the con¬
ventional benedictory verse of the Mahabharata itself modified
just to accommodate the name ‘Vyasa’ incorporated therein;
the verse runs as follows :
Narayanam namaskrtya
Naram caiva narottamam /
Devlm Sarasvatlrh Vyasam
tato jayamudirayet //
We may recall here the salutation offered to Vy£sa by
poet Banabhatta, an illustrious predecessor of Ksemendra.
Bana writes :
Namah sarvavide tasmai
Vyasaya kavi-vedhase /
Cakre punyam Sarasvatya
Yo varsam iva Bharatam / / 12
Devotion to Vydsa and Valntiki 99
In the above verse, Bana records his genuine appreciation of
Vyasa as one versed in all the branches of knowledge, as the
prime poet and as the composer of the sacred book, the
Mahabharata, which the poet (Banal compares to a shower
for Sarasvati to blossom. Bana’s homage to Vyasa embodies
quite aptly and justly the perennial feeling of respect cherished
by Indian poets through the ages towards Vvasa and his
unique creation, the Mahabharata. In Ksemendra, we find
this normal feeling of a rational reverence for Vyasa precipitat¬
ing into a divine spirit of devotional enthusiasm, which illu¬
mined the poet’s mental horizon. The first verse of the
Adiparvan of his Mahabharatamanjari reflects this emotional
disposition of the poet’s mind. The verse reads as follows :
Samastavadanodgltabrahmane
Brahmane namah /
Namah Prajapatibhyas ca
Krsna-Dvaipayanaya ca / /
It is noteworthy that in the above verse Vyasa is propitiated
in the same devotional strain along with god Brahman and
the Prajapatis; this perhaps reveals how the poet was dis¬
posed to conceive of Vvasa as entitled to rather a superhuman
status.
In verse no. 790 18 of the Dronaparvan of the Maha¬
bharatamanjari, Ksemendra describes Vyasa as follows : The
sage (i.e. Vyasa) is ‘Akrsna* (white, pure), though he is
‘Krsna’ (by name Krsna, i.e., Krsna-Dvaipayana, or having a
dark complexion). He is ‘Jnanasahasrarasmih’ (the thousand-
rayed sun of knowledge). Further, he is ‘Aparavedamrtasin-
dhusetuh’ (the bridge over the ocean of the nectar of the
unlimited Veda). Besides, he is the king of swans in the
‘Manasa’ (mind, or the lake by that name) of Sarasvati.
The Vyasastaka forming just a portion of the autobio¬
graphical account given in the concluding verses of the Maha¬
bharatamanjari contains the poet’s full-throated expression of
100
Ksemendra
ecstatic devotion to Vyasa, whom he describes there as one
shining brilliantly with the flaming glow of knowledge, promot¬
ing the culture of the vast and varied Sastras, as the quintessence
of ambrosia, as the generator of all poetic activities, as the
abode of Truth, as the repository of penance, as the dispeller
of darkness and the terminator of worldly pain. He also
compares Vyasa to a thousand-boughed tree in the garden
of Dharma, bearing blossoms of ‘Sattvapratistha’ and fruits
of ‘Nirvana’, thus :
Namah sahasrasakhaya
Dharmopavanasakhine /
Sattvapratisthapuspaya
Nirvanaphalasaline / / 14
Without going into further details of his appreciation of
Vyasa as embodied in the Vyasastaka, we may say that Kse-
mendra’s conception of this personality is superbly sublime
and magnificent. The single short verse in the Suvrttatilaka,
where the poet pays homage to Vyasa, is also pulsating with
profound admiration for this holy personage. The verse runs
as follows :
Namaschandonidhanaya
suvrttacaravedhase /
Tapahsatyanivasaya
Vyasayamitatejase // 15
[Salutation to Vyasa of immense lustre, the
treasure-house of (different kinds of) metres,
an authority on good conduct and etiquette,
and the very abode of asceticism and
truth. 16 ]
In view of the above it may be affirmed that Ksemendra
in every way was pre-eminently guided and stimulated by
Vyasa who seems to have seized his whole consciousness pro¬
bably since the prime of his life.
Devotion to Vydsa and Valmiki
101
An honest connoisseur of merits, Ksemendra had a great
respect for Valmiki, too, whom he praises in the Ramayana-
manjarl with all the sincerity of a true poet. Although Vyasa
is almost a god to him, Ksemendra does not fail to discover
the greatness of Valmiki and record his importance as the
first Indian poet who excels in his wealth of choicest expressions
that captivate the heart of his readers. In the following verses,
our poet pays homage to Valmiki.
Jyestho jayati Valmlkih
Sargabandhe prajapatih /
Yah sarvahrdayallnam
kavyam Ramayanam vyadhat / / 1T
Svacchapravahasubhaga
munimandalasevita /
Yasmat svargad ivotpanna
punya pracl sarasvati’// 18
Numah sarvopajlvyam tam
kavlnam cakravaitinam /
Yasyendudhavalaih slokair
bhusita bhuvanatrayl / / 10
Sa vah punatu Valmlkih
suktamrtamahodadhih /
Onkara iva varnanam
kavlnarii prathamo munih / / 20
[Victory to Valmiki, the earliest (poet), the
Prajapati (Creator) in respect of composi¬
tions in sargas (i.e. epic-poems), who com¬
posed the Ramayana lying imbedded in the
heart of all.
(Victory to Valmiki), from whom origina¬
ted, as though from Heaven, the holy
Oriental speech, graceful on account of its
lucid flow, waited upon by multitudes of
sages.
102
Ksemendra
My homage to him, the means of sustenance
to all, the sovereign among poets, by whose
verses as white as the moon, the collection
of the three worlds is adorned.
May the sage Valmiki purify us—Valmiki,
who is the great sea of the ambrosia of
excellent sayings and who, like Ohkara
among the letters of the alphabet, is the
first among poets.]
To conclude, in giving a correct and critical review of
Ksemendra’s life as a student, as a poet and as a man, we
cannot afford to miss the names of Vyasa and Valmiki who,
long since departed though, were perhaps more than living
teachers to our poet, having exercised an enormous influence,
at least as much as was done by Abhinava, Soma, Gangaka
and others taken together, in the pursuit of his career and the
growth and integration of his personality.
Chapter Ten
HIS FRIENDS AND PUPILS
We come across the name of one Ramayasas mentioned
by Ksemendra in the Mahabharatamanjari 1 and the Brhatkatha¬
manjari 2 and by Somendra in his Introduction to the Avadana-
kalpalata. 3 Ramayasas has been described as a Brahmana
having a pure and noble mind. Ksemendra, as the poet
himself informs us, undertook' the task of composing both
the poetical epitomes, Mahabharatamanjari and Brhatkatha¬
manjari, at the request of this Ramayasas. It appears that
there was a sweet, friendly relation between Ksemendra and
Ramayasas. Prof. Le'vi observes : ‘If the poet attributes
the composition of the Brhatkathamanjari to the entreaty of
the Brahmana, Ramayasas, undoubtedly that is only a way
of politeness and of dedication : it may also be that his friend
particularly recommended to him the work of Gunadhya as
an excellent subject for versification.’ 4 Since Somendra des¬
cribes him as ‘sarvaprabandhapreraka’ (i.e. ? one who urged
the composition of all the works), it may be supposed that
Ramayasas played an important part in setting Ksemendra to
the composition of several other works also.
The accounts at our disposal acclaim Ramayasas neither
as a teacher, nor as a scholar, nor as a poet but as one
intensely interested in Ksemendra’s literary enterprise, pro¬
pelling and promoting his work more like a philosopher and
guide than like a mere friend or admirer. He is like a
‘whispering angel prompting the poet’s golden dreams’ and
shines like ‘the bright morning star, day’s harbinger’. Kse¬
mendra undoubtedly was verv respectful to Ramayasas who
was evidently a fine enlightened man of generous ideas and wide
imagination. Since the man’s name is associated with the com¬
position of some of the poet’s earlier works, i.e., the Maha¬
bharatamanjari and the Brhatkathamanjari, and since, further,
in the Avadanakalpalata which was composed several years
later than the Brhatkathamanjari, Somendra records his spon-
104
Ksemendra
taneous appreciation of the man’s services in the literary per¬
formances of his father, Ksemendra’s connection with the man,
it may be supposed, covered quite a considerable period of the
former’s span of poetical career.
The Rijatarangini acquaints us with three men having
the name ‘Rama’. One was an attendant of Tilakasimha 5
who was a son of Vijayasiriiha and one of the ministers of
king Uccala (c. 1101-11 A.D.).« For chronological reasons,
this Rama cannot certainly be identified with Ramayasas. The
other Rama, called Rimadeva, was a relative of Prabhakara-
deva, minister and kosadhyaksa of Gopalavarman (c. 902-904
A.D.), 1 and paternal grand-uncle of Yasaskara (c. 939-948
AD.). 8 From chronological consideration, again, this Rama
cannot be identified with Ramayasas. The third one was also
named Ramadeva; he was a learned man, distinguished for
his valour, and was killed by the soldiers of Ananta’s son
Kalasa (c. 1063-1089 A.D.) in course of the latter’s feud
with his father. 9 From the stand-point of chronology and
also of the fact that this Ramadeva was a man of letters, an
important personality, endowed with valour and virtue, there
is obviously no reason for objection to identifying him with
our Ramayasas ; but since the two names, excepting in their
hypothetical abbreviated form, are not identical, and also
because there is yet no tangible evidence in our support it
would be improper to propose the said identification, however
otherwise tempting. In the opinion of Dr. Suryakanta also,
‘it is unsafe to identify Ramayasas with any of these’. 10
Tn his Introduction to the Avadanakalpalata, Somendra
mentions one Nakka who appears to have been an intimate
friend of Ksemendra. As we gather from Somendra’s state¬
ment, Nakka was a devotee of the Buddha (Saugatah) ; he
was renowned for his good deeds (Khyatasukrtah) and was
the foremost among the virtuous (Gunavatam Varah) ; from
him emanated the first urge setting Ksemendra to the task of
writing the Avadanas. 11
In Somendra’s Introduction to the Avadanakalpalata,
Dr. Suryakanta finds mention of one Sajjanananda as a dear
Friends and Pupils
105
friend of Ksemendra. 12 “It is he”, says the learned scholar,
“who first requests him (Ksemendra) to compose the Avadana-
kalpalata.” 18 Dr. A. Sharma along with his colleagues, in
agreement with Dr. Suryakanta, says : “At the suggestion of
Sajjanananda, Ksemendra had, with the help of Viryabhadra
(an authority on Buddhism), composed 107 Chapters of
Bauddha A. K. Latia.” 14 Dr. P. L. Vaidya similarly holds :
“In the preface, Somendra tells us that Sajjanananda requested
Ksemendra to write the Buddha’s avadanas.” 15 It may be
mentioned that our known sources of information have failed
to help us determine the identity of this supposed personality,
Sajjanananda. 16
A careful reading of the relevant portion of Somendra’s
Introduction would, however, incline us to suppose that the
word ‘Sajjanananda’ as it occurs in verse 5 of the said text
is not probably a proper name, and that, even if it is, the
reference to the personage by that name is perhaps not in
connection with the history of composition of the Avadanakal-
palata as given by Somendra. The text in question is as
follows :
Ksemcndrastanayastasya
kavindrah kirticandrika /
Candrasyevodita yasya
manasolliisini satam / / verse 4.
Yasya Ramayasah sarva-
prabandhaprerako dvijah /
Prayatah S(s?) ajjananandah
punyah prathamadutatam / /verse 5.
Tam kadacit sukhasinam
suhrdgunavatarh varah /
Saugatah khvatasukrto
Nakka-nama samabhyadhat / / verse 6.
In the first four verses of the Introduction under reference,
Somendra traces the four successive generations beginning from
106
Ksemendra
Bhogindra to Ksemendra born in the line of Narendra. The
fifth verse completes the fourth ; and the two verses (nos. 4
& 5) thus form a couplet, an indivisible unit in point of sense
and syntactical relation. The fourth verse, in introducing
Ksemendra as the son of Prakasendra, gives quite relevantly
an appreciation of Ksemendra’s far-spreading fame as a poet.
The word ‘Yasya’ in verse 5 obviously refers to ‘Ksemendrah’
occurring in verse 4, and the mention of Ramayasas in verse
5 thus exclusively relates itself to that of Ksemendra’s success
as a poet as described in verse 4. With the fifth verse, obviously,
ends a general review of Ksemendra’s ancestry and of the
poet’s literary distinction which necessarily brings in a grateful
reconnoissance of the magnanimous Ramayasas who had con¬
tributed generously to that end. The sixth verse which may
very well stand apart as an independent statement, gramma¬
tically complete by itself, marks the beginning of a new theme
which aims at providing a history of how the Avadanakalpalata
was composed. Since the verses 6 to 16 are thus topically
detached from verses 1 to 5, the supposed name ‘Sajjanananda*
occurring in verse 5 cannot, except by putting an undue
strain on our sense and imagination, be interpreted to
fling a reference to its conjectured association with the history
of composition of the Avadanakalpalata, which, as already
stated, starts right from verse 6. If, however, by correlating
‘yasya’ and ‘tarn’ occurring in verse 5 and verse 6 respectively,
the two verses (nos, 5 & 6) are taken to form a complete
statement, and if thereby the suggested line of demarcation of
themes is drawn after verse 4 instead of after verse 5 as
contended by us, it would still be difficult within the range
of the said two verses to find a trace of indication in favour
of Dr. Suryakanta’s statement to the effect that it was Sajjana-
nanda who first requested Ksemendra to compose the Ava¬
danakalpalata.
If, again, credence is given to Dr. Suryakanta’s state¬
ment under discussion and the question of its legitimacy or
otherwise in the light of the above argument is dropped, a
still more perplexing question would inevitably crop up, and
that is this : Why is it that Sajjanananda alone and not
Friends and Pupils
107
Ramayasas also is said to have requested Ksemendra to com¬
pose the Avadanakalpalata? In fact, in the verse in question
the name of Ramayasas is mentioned along with the supposed
name Sajjanananda, and the imolication presumed in the case
of Sajjanananda cannot possibly be withheld from the name
Ramayasas, without subjecting Somendra to the unmeri e
charge of lack of clarity and coherence. The interpretation of
Dr SuryakSnta thus throws us into a chasm of confusion. e
are, therefore, inclined to . opine that verse 5 of Somendra s
Introduction should go with verse 4, and that in any case
verse 5 has no bearing on the history of composition of the
Avadanakalpalata, and further that ‘sajjanananda” m the text
under reference is not a proper name. for. otherwise
‘prathamadutata’ i.e., the state of being a fore-runner, which
in the present context is but a figurative way of meaning
the state of being a ‘prabandhaprcraka’. has to be affirmed
simultaneously of two different persons [i.e Ramayasas
(sarvaprabandhapreraka) and the supposed Sajjanananda
(prathamaduta)l, but that does not seem to be acceptable.
We believe that in perfect similarity to the words ‘punyah’,
‘dvijah’, etc, occurring in verse 5, ‘sajjananandah’ meaning
‘the delight of the good’ or ‘one having delight in the company
of good men’ is just another word qualifying Ramayasalj ,
and the word in that sense would fit in quite well with the
character of Ramayasas, as is evident from the nature of his
known activities in relation to Ksemendra’s literary pursui .
It may be noted in this connection that Prof. Le'vi does not
recognise, and that rightly too, any mim having the name
‘Sajjanananda’ in the context of Ksemendra s life and li < y
career. He mentions Ramayasas and none else as a friend of
Ksemendra, on whose demand the poet wrote most of his
works. Again, he mentions the Buddhist Nakka as one for
whom our poet composed the Avadanakalpalata, but he does
not speak of anybody else in that connection. 1.
Somendra refers to one Survasri whom he calls an ‘Acarya
and admires for his proficiency in the Sastras and his power
of detecting and correcting flaws creeping into any production
108
Ksemendra
on any subject. 18 He was evidently a first-rate scribe and his
services were requested for copying the Avadanakalpalata.
We cannot say whether Suryasrl was a regular and permanent
scribe of Ksemendra, although Dr. Suryakanta, as it appears
from his statement, believes he was. 10 Probably there existed
a close, friendly relation between Ksemendra and Suryasrl. No
further knowledge about Suryasrl has been yet available to
scholars.
Ksemendra’s friend, Ratnasimha mentioned in the Aucitya-
vicaracarca 20 was, as Pt. M. S. Kaul Shastri observes, king
of Sri-Vijayesa. 21 Pt. Kaul’s observation is presumably based
on a verse occurring in the book referred to above, the first
half of which reads as follows :
Sri-Ratnasimhe suhrdi prayate
Sarvam puram Sri-Vijayesarajni.
The word ‘Sri-Vijayesarajni’ qualifying ‘Sri-Ratnasimhe’ in the
above extract probably suggested to Pt. Kaul that Ratna-
simha was king of Sri-Vijayesa. But an obvious difficulty in
endorsing this interpretation is that the expression ‘Sri-Vijaye-
sarajni’ cannot be expounded as ‘Sri-Vijayesasya Raja, Tasmin’,
for, in that case, with the samdsdnla affix ‘Tac’, 22 the correct
form ought to be ‘Sri-Vijayesaraje’, and a charge of gross
grammatical inaccuracy like the one in question cannot indeed
be levelled against Ksemendra for the sake of a meaning of
our sweet choice. Although the available editions of the work
in question give us the form ‘Sri-Vijayesarajni’, we may be
given the liberty just to conjecture that this form is perhaps
a scribal error for ‘Sri-Vijayasva Rajni' in which supposed ex¬
pression ‘Sri-Vijaya’ may be taken to mean ‘Sri-Vijayesa’
leaving no doubt regarding the appropriateness of Pt. Kaul’s
interpretation as noted above. The form as it actually stands
before us should, however, be expounded thus : ‘Sri-Vijayesah
Raja Yasva, Tasmin’. In the light of this interpretation, we
may say that Ratnasimha had Sri-Vijayesa, i.e., the presiding
deity of the famous shrine of Siva Viiayesa 23 as his King or
Supreme Master. From this it follows that Ratnasimha was
Friends and Pupils
109
a great devotee of Siva—an idea which is significantly consis¬
tent with the form and spirit of the expression in which K?e-
mendra puts the plain fact of his friend’s death in the extract
given above. It is probable that Ratnasimha had his residence
at Vijayesvara (Bijbihara), and his death perhaps occurred
before May, 1059 A.D.. at the latest, for the Aucityavicara-
carca which, according to Ksemendra himself, was composed
after the death of this friend of his, is supposed to have been
completed towards the close of May, 1059 A.D. 24 The Raja-
tarahginl mentions two persons having the name ‘Ratna’, but,
for chronological reasons, Ratnasimha cannot be identified with
either of those two Ratnas, one of whom was minister of foreign
affairs to King Utpalapida whose reign ended in A.D. 855-6 25 ,
and the other, a well-known person of Kashmir, who turned a
supporter of Bhiksacara, flourished in the first quarter of the
twelfth century. 26
Of his two pupils mentioned by Ksemendra, Bhatta Udaya-
simha, son of his friend Ratnasimha, seems to have been one
of the poet’s favourites. As the poet himself says, he composed
the Aucityavicaracarca for this pupil of his. Udayasirhha kept
up the cultural heritage derived from his worthy teacher by
taking to literary workmanship in addition to his usual functions
as one in an exalted administrative post which he is supposed
to have adorned. Ksemendra mentions two Mahakavyas, viz.,
Lalita and Bhaktibhava, whose author was his pupil, Udaya-
simha. 27 According to Dr. Siiryakanta, “the identification of
Bhatta Udayasirhha, Ksemendra’s pupil with Bhatta Udayasimha
of the Rajatarangini 28 is tempting, and from chronological
evidence, even plausible.” 29
Ksemendra’s other pupil was Laksmanaditya who was
also probably a poet. A verse assigned to him has been quoted
by Ksemendra in his Kavikanthabharana. 80 The question of
identification of this Laksmanaditya who is mentioned as a
Rajaputra with one Laksmaka mentioned in the Rajatarangini
presents no doubt an important issue demanding careful con¬
sideration. Having, as he does, the honorific title ‘Brhadraja’,
Laksmaka shines as an important figure in the history of
110
Ksemendra
Kashmir. His name is associated with Sussala (c. 1112-1120,
1121-1128), Bhiksacara (c. 1120-1121) 'and Jayasimha
(c 1128-1149). He had a long and eventful career of royal
service distinguished by admirable administrative ability, enthu¬
siasm and skill. This Laksmaka is designated as Ksattr and
Pratihara in the RajatarangLni. 81 It appears that the two
designations, ‘Ksattr’ and ‘Pratihara’, had identical import.
‘Ksattr’ has often been rendered as ‘Pratihara’, 82 and the word
‘Chamberlain’ has been generally used by scholars as an
English equivalent for both these terms. 88 According to Dr.
Suryakanta, the only reason that militates against the identifica¬
tion of Ksemendra’s pupil, Rajaputra Laksmanaditya with
Laksmaka of the Rajatarangini as mentioned above is the
improbability of a rajaputra being appointed a chamberlain. 84
In our opinion, Dr. Suryakanta’s view as stated above does not
seem to be completely free from flaw. The whole weight of
Dr. Suryakanta’s contention obviously rests on an idea of low
status which he apparently assigns to the title ‘Chamberlain
(Ksattr or Pratihara). Keeping this in view, an inquiry
deserves rightly to be instituted to determine the proper and
exact import of the term, ‘Ksattr’ (synonymous with ‘Pra¬
tihara’) as an official tide current in ancient Kashmir, in the
background of its variety of meanings available in ancient
Indian literature beginning from the Vedic age on to the
late Classical period. 36
The name of the Ksattr as a member of the Royal Council
occurs in connection with the well-known Raiasuya sacrifice
of the Vedic age. The ceremony of ‘Ratninam Havimsii
reveals the importance of the Ksattr as one of the twelve
members constituting the early Indian administrative machinery.
These members who are called ‘ratnins’ represent the various
functionaries to whom the kingship owes its genesis and sus¬
tenance. They are thus rightly described as ‘rastrasy prada-
tarah’, 36 as limbs of Ksattra 37 and as Tajaviras’. 38 A res¬
pectful mention of the Ksattr along with the Samgrahitr is to
be found in the following words : ‘Namah Ksattrbhyah Sam-
grahitrbhyas ca Vo Namah’. 39 Savit r is the deity to whom
the offering is made in the house of the Ksattr. 40 It may be
Friends and Pupils
111
supposed that in the sacrifice ‘Rajasuya’, rightly so called, the
Ksattr stands in the same relation to the rajan as the Savitr
(derived from the root ‘Su’ or ‘Su’ meaning ‘to impel’ or ‘to
generate’ 41 ) to the universe. The statement ‘Prasavita vai
Ksatta’ 42 evidently justifies this conjecture. The Ksattr is thus
rightly called a rajakrt ; 4S and a rajakrt, or rajakartr, or raj-
akrtvan, as a political term, means a High Minister, a State
Functionary of high status. 44 Tn the light of the above, it is
rather difficult to agree with Dr. U. N. Ghoshal who considers
the Ksattr to be a minor officer of an humble rank belonging
to the royal household only. 45
Having its earliest use in the Rgveda, the term ‘Ksattr’
frequently occurs in the later Samhitas as well as in the
Brahmana and the Sutra literature; and commentators have
assigned various meanings to the word. 46 In the Dharma-
sastras, ‘Ksattr’ denotes a mixed caste of the condemned group,
superior only to the most despised Candala. 47 The word is
traceable in the Mahabharata also, where it occurs as a name
of Vidura, often as an adjunct to the name ‘Vidura’ itself.
We have reasons to suggest that the name ‘Ksattr’ as applied
to Vidura should in all propriety be taken as a title of great
honour and not in the popular undignified sense of ‘bhujisya-
tanaya’. In the Bhagavata the word is often used to mean a
Pratihara i.e.. Door-keeper, or the Officer-in-charge of a town. 48
The lexicons, both ancient 49 and modern, 60 have also recorded
the various available meanings (tf the term.
The above survey places at our disposal the following
meanings assignable to the term, ‘Ksattr’ : dvahstha (pratihara),
sarathi, rathin, rathadhisthatr, antahpuradhyksa, kosadhyaksa,
nagaradhyaksa, duta, mantrin and mixed offspring. On a
scrutiny of the context and the manner in which the term
‘Ksattr’ (or ‘Pratihara’) is used in the Rajatarangini and the
Kathasaritsagara, and on a close study of the career of Laks-
maka (designated as both Ksattr and Pratihara) as described
by Kalhana, and also on a comparative examination of the
many other official titles current in ancient Kashmir, it would
appear that the term, ‘Ksattr’ (or ‘Pratihara’), in reference to
112
Ksemendra
the administrative set-up of ancient Kashmir, most probably
means a Dvahstha, i.e., Door-keeper. That the Ksattr or
Pratlhara in Kashmir was not an ordinary door-keeper, but
that the officer held an impoitant port-folio and was given
important duties to perform, having the rare privilege of free
and private access to the king, whenver needed, would be
evident from many relevant passages of the Rajatarangini and
the Kathisaritsagara. In view of all this, it becomes an
irresistible conclusion that in ancient Kashmir the Ksattr or
PratThira belonging to the personal staff of the king was a
very important functionary, an influential member of the
government, enjoying high status and the greatest confidence
of the king, with his normal duty of helping the king in matters
of interview, conference and judgment etc., and having no
restriction imposed upon the nature and extent of additional
work he might be required or called upon to perform in the
interest of the king and his kingdom.
In the light of our findings as above, we cannot really
entertain the suspected improbability of a rajaputra being
appointed a chamberlain (Ksattr or Pratlhara). Hence, if not
from any other consideration, especially that of age and chro¬
nology, the identification of Kserpendra’s pupil, Rajaputra
Laksmanaditya with Chamberlain Laksmaka of the Rajatarah-
ginl cannot possibly be exploded merely on the ground advanced
by Dr. Suryakanta.
Chapter Eleven
HIS WORKS—THEIR RECOVERY
The following survey means to present in bare broad
outlines an account of the way and the extent as well as
of the character of recovery, through successive years, of the
varied and numerous contributions in the field of letters by
the polygraph Ksemendra, who had been, so to speak, a
lost personality about even a century ago.
Ksemendra was only a name before 1871 A.D. The
only things, mostly by way of reference, available about that
time under the unidentified name ‘Ksemendra’ were the follow¬
ing : (i) One history of Kashmir, 1 (ii) A lexicon, 2 (iii)
Brhatkatha, 3 (iv) Ksemendraprakasa, 4 (v) Some Avadanas, 5
and (vi) Citations in Sarngadharapaddhati. 6 Scholars, how¬
ever, could not then think in favour of assigning to one single
individual the authorship of all the above compositions which
are obviously so different in character. 7
The period from 1871 to 1886 A.D. makes an important
chapter in the history of Indological research, in so far as the
years in question are characterised by a steady and significant
unveiling of the many works of Ksemendra, which had long
since disappeared from public view.
Dr. A. C. Burnell’s discovery of a copy of Ksemendra’s
Brhatkatha in the palace of Tanjore marks the august beginning
of the poet’s reappearance into reality. Announcement of this
discovery was made by Burnell himself in September, 1871. 8
Immediately after Burnell, Dr. G. Buhler discovered a copy
of the said work at Gujarat. 9 Buhler describes his discovery
of this second manuscript of the Brhatkatha as the real reco¬
very of the work. In Buhler’s opinion, no other copy of the
book was hitherto accessible to European Sanskritists. 10 Buhler
8
114
Ksemendra
also informs us that the Brhatkatha was not procurable in
Kashmir though local scholars had heard about it and hoped
to get copies of it in course of time. 11
Buhler published some portion of his copy of the Brhat¬
katha in The Indian Antiquary, Vol. I. October 4, 1872 A.D.,
the date of publication of the above volume, is thus a red-letter
day in the history of resurrection of Ksemendra’s works. So
far as we know, it was on this date that Ksemendra first saw
the light after a long sojourn in the land of oblivion. Some
stray verses of Ksemendra, however, had already come to the
notice of scholars, but the academic world at large did not
really have any way a free and open access to some important
work of Ksemendra, though published in part, prior to that
date.
In 1873-74, Dr. Rajendralal Mitra first discovered the
Kaliivilasa. 12 This was a manuscript in Bengali character,
dated Samvat 1821. Soon after Dr. Mitra’s discovery of the
work Dr. Buhler bought a copy of the same at Bikaner. 13
According to Buhler’s observation, the Kaliivilasa was unknown
in Kashmir. 14
In 1874-75, Buhler obtained from Bhuj the Bharataman-
jari. 15 He procured at Kashmir his second copy of the work
in 1875-76. It was a paper manuscript in Sarada script, dated
Saptarsi 93. 16 In the same year (i.e., 1875-76) Buhler pur¬
chased two complete paper copies in Devanagari of the Caru-
carya 17 at Kashmir and his second copy of the Brhatkatha
at Bharuch (Broach). The manuscript of the Brhatkatha too
was a paper copy in Devanagari; it was dated Samvat 1718
and was not complete. 18 During the said year Buhler also
procured at Kashmir the following hitherto unknown works
of Ksemendra: (i) Ramiyanakathasara—two paper copies
(complete) ; of these one copy was in Sarada character and
the other one in Devanagari 19 ; (ii) Dasavataracarita—two
paper copies (complete) ; one copy was in Sarada character
and the other one in Devanagari 20 ; (iii) Samayamatrka—one
complete Bhurja copy in Sarada character 21 ; (iv) Vyasastaka :
Works—Their Recovery
115
given at the end of the copy of Bharatamanjari referred to
above 22 ; (v) Suvrttatilaka—one complete paper copy in Deva-
nagari 23 ; (vi) Nitikalpataru—one complete paper copy in Deva-
nagari 24 ; and (vii) Lokaprakasa—two copies; one of them
was a complete paper copy in Sarada character and the other
copy of the work (Prakasa II was a paper copy in Devanagari,
obviously incomplete. 25 It needs to be noted here that in
the course of his search for manuscripts, Dr. Buhler chanced
to get some information regarding the existence of Ksemendra’s
Nrpavali (mentioned by Kalhana) somewhere in Kashmir. 26
He hoped very much to find out the book, but ultimately the
hope was not fulfilled. It may be recalled with regret that
Dr. M. A. Stein’s earnest efforts made subsequently to recover
the book were equally rewarded with frustration. 27
In 1877 A.D., we have some extracts published by Buhler
from manuscripts of Ksemendra’s works procured by the said
scholar in 1875-76 28 . Mr. H. Uhle published in 1881 in AKM
the different modifications of the stories of Vetalapancavimsati
including the version of Ksmendra. 29
In 1882, Dr. P. Peterson discovered one copy of Ksemen¬
dra’s Carucaryasataka and another of Caturvargasamgraha by
the same author. 30
In the beginning of 1882, Mr. Sarat Chandra Das first
traced the existence of the Sanskrit text of Ksemendra’s Ava-
danakalpalata in Tibet. In the middle of the same year,
Mr. Das secured from a distinguished person of Lhasa a block-
print copy of the work, with a transliteration of the Sanskrit
text (in Tibetan characters), along with a Tibetan translation
printed in juxtaposition. 31 Credit indeed goes to Mr. Das
who thus discovered the text of the Avadiinakalpalata, which
could not be traced in Kashmir or anywhere in India. 32
In 1883, we find the authorship of Avadanakalpalata
firmly and finally assigned to our Ksemendra. 33 The Kavi-
kanthibharana, a valuable work of the poet, was first discovered
perhaps not later than March, 1883, 34 and the first copy of
116
Ksemendra
the treatise, as Peterson acknowledges it, was obtained by
Buhler. 35 Buhler informs us in January, 1884 that an examina¬
tion of his (i.e., Buhler’s) apograph of the manuscript of
Kavikanthabharana has shown that it contains, besides the said
book, another small treatise on Alamkara called Aucityavicara¬
carca. 3 ®
In 1884, Mr. J. Schonberg published in SWAW a mono¬
graph on Kavikanthabharana. 37 In the said paper, Schonberg
provided a list of eight works which he found quoted or referred
to in that book. These were an addition to the twelve com¬
positions by Ksemendra already known at the time. Schon-
berg’s list of the eight additional works is as follows : (i) Sasi-
vamsa, (ii) Padya-Kadambari, (iii) Citrabharata, (iv) Tavanya-
vati, (v) Kanakajanaki, (vi) Desopadesa, (vii) Muktavali, and
(viii) Amrtataranga.
In 1885 A.D., Peterson informs us of his getting a copy
of Aucityalamkara presented along with the Kavikanthabharana
in the same manuscript. 38 This work on Aucitya was found
entered in the list of books lying with one Rajendrasuri, a
Jain religious teacher at the time in Ahmedabad. Rajendra-
suri’s Aucityalamkara, says Peterson, turned out to be the
Aucityavicaracarca discovered by Buhler who, too, had found
it together with the Kavikanthabharana comprised in one and
the same manuscript. 30 In his analysis of the Aucityalamkara,
otherwise called Aucityavicaracarca, Peterson noticed ten names
of Ksemendra’s works quoted in the said book. 40 Of these,
the Citrabharata, the Lavanyavatl, and the Muktavali are
quoted in the Kavikanthabharana also. Of the remaining seven,
the Bauddhavadanalata is evidently the same work as Bauddha-
vadanakalpalata, or briefly, Avadanakalpalata already assigned
to Ksemendra in Cecil Bendall’s catalogue. Peterson’s analysis,
therefore, gives us six new names, which are as follows:
(i) Avasarasara, (ii) Nitilata, (iii) Munimatamimamsa,
(iv) Lalitaratnamala, (v) Vinayavalli, and (vi) Vatsyayana-
sustrasara. In the year under reference (i.e., 1885 A.D.), we
also find mention of another name, i.e., Darpadalana, in the
account of Ksemendra’s works given by Prof. Sylvain Le'vi. 41
Works—Their Recovery
117
As the scholar himself informs us, this work had been indicated
to him by Buhler. 42
In 1885, Le'vi published the complete text in Roman
script 43 of the first lambaka of the Brhatkathamanjari on the
basis of three manuscripts 44 A French translation 45 of the
said text was also given by Le'vi with the professed aim to
facilitate researches.
It was in the year 1886 that scholars came across two
new names, Sevyasevakopadesa and Pavanapancasika, noted
by Peterson in his account of Ksemendra in the Introduction
to his edition of Vallabhadeva’s Subhasitavall. It
may be mentioned in this connection that the name of
Pavanapancasika occurs, though once only, in Ksemendra’s
Suvrttatilaka, 46 a complete copy of which was acquired long
ago by Buhler in the year 1875-76 47 ; but, yet, the said work
(i.e., Pavanapancasika) found no mention in the lists given
subsequently, in 1885 A.D., by Le'vi 48 and Peterson. 40 This
might be due to the probable reason that scholars could not
till then have access to the text of the Suvrttatilaka.
It was evidently after 1886 A.D. that the name of Dana-
parijata as a work by Ksemendra came to the knowledge of
the academic world. This new name which is not traceable
in the relevant records of the pioneer scholars in the field,
viz., Buhler, Peterson and Le'vi, was noticed originally by
Dr. Rajendralal Mitra 50 and, on Dr. Mitra’s authority, by
Dr. Theodor Aufrecht thereafter. 51
The period from 1886 to 1903 A.D. witnessed a wide
publicity of as many as thirteen works of Ksemendra published
from the Nirnaya-Sagara Press, Bombay. The works are :
(i) Kalavilasa, 52 (ii) Aucityavicaracarca, 53 (iii) Suvrttatilaka, 64
(iv) Sevyasevakopadesa, 55 (v) Carucarya, 56 (vi) Kavikantha-
bharana, 57 (vii) Caturvargasarngraha, 58 (viii) Samayamatrka, 59
(ix) Darpadalana, 60 (x) Dasavataracarita, 61 (xi) Bharataman-
jari 62 including the Vyasastaka, (xii) Brhatkathamanjari, 63 and
(xiii) Raniayanamanjarl. 64 Some of the abovenamed works,
118
Ksemendra
evidently on bona fide demand from academic quarters, under¬
went even further editions in subsequent years. Thus, for
example, the second edition of the Samayamatrka was published
in 1925, that of the Brhatkathamanjari in 1931 and of the
Caturvargasamgraha in 1937 A.D. In 1899 we have the
second edition and in 1937 the third edition of the Kavikantha-
bharana. Editions were also published in the Chowkhamba
Sanskrit Series in 1933 of Aucityavicaracarca, Kavikantha-
bharana and Suvrttatilaka.
Ksemendra’s Avadanakalpalata, together with its Tibetan
version, was originally published in the Bibliotheca Indica
Series in twentyfour fascicles (two volumes) from 1888 to
1918 A.D. under joint editorship. Mr. Sarat Chandra Das,
C.I.E., who, as already noticed above, had recovered this lost
gem of India, the Avadanakalpalata, in 1882 A.D., was one
of the editors. It may be noted that the second fascicle of
the first volume of the above edition was sold out perhaps
before 1924, and the same was reprinted in 1940. 05 In 1959
we are presented with a new publication of the entire work
(Sanskrit text only) in two volumes 66 under the editorship
of Dr. P. L. Vaidya. The volumes were published by The
Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in
Sanskrit Learning, Darbhanga (Bihar).
Another notable work of Ksemendra, the hitherto unknown
Narmamala, conjointly with his Desopadesa known only by
name and a quotation in Kavikanthabharana 67 since 1884 68
reappeared in the year 1923 A.D. under the editorship of
Pt. Madhusudan Kaul Shastri. Pt. Kaul had procured in 1921
AD. from a library in Kashmir a manuscript containing the
said two works. 69 The above edition was published by the
Research Department, Srinagar as the fortieth volume of the
Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies.
In 1947, the full text of Ksemendra’s Lokaprakasa was
published by the Research Department. Srinagar as the seventy-
fifth volume of the Kashmir Series, under the editorship of
Pt. Jagaddhar Zadoo Shastri. The text was reconstructed by
Works—Their Recovery
119
Pt. Zadoo on the basis of two manuscripts. One of these
manuscripts was locally available at Kashmir from one Pt.
Sahaja Bhatta, formerly of the Research Department, Srinagar;
and the other manuscript was borrowed from the Deccan College
Library, Poona. 70 The earliest known presentation of the
abovenamed work had been in the form of excerpts published
by Prof. A. Weber in Indische Studien 71 and, in a way, through
the medium of some notes and comments, etc., on different
topics of and about the book, provided by Buhler in his
Kashmir Report 72 and by Stein in his Rajataranginl. 73 Pt.
Zadoo’s publication as above has indeed opened an opportunity
for scholars to conduct freely and confidently a critical study
of this important work in its entirety and exactitude.
The year 1956 A.D. saw the publication of Ksemendra’s
Nitikalpataru critically edited for the first time by Dr. V. P.
Mahajan on the basis of the only known manuscript, namely,
that procured by Buhler in 1S76 in Kashmir. This edition
was published by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute,
Poona as the first volume of the Post-Graduate and Research
Department Series.
In 1961 A.D., there came out a collection, edited jointly
by Dr. Aryendra Sharma and two other scholars, of as many
as eleven smaller works of Ksemendra. 74 The collection also
contains some of Ksemendra's famous verses 75 in praise of Vyiisa,
Valmiki and the incarnations of Visnu, as well as the auto¬
biographical accounts 76 culled from the poet’s bigger works
available to us, viz., Dasavataracarita, Brhatkathamafijari,
Bharatamafijari and Ramayauamanjari. The said collec¬
tion, which is entitled ‘Minor Works of Ksemendra—Ksemen-
dra-Laghu-Kavya-Sahgrahah’, was published by the Osmania
University, Hyderabad as the seventh volume of the Sanskrit
Academy Series.
With the recovery, which is admittedly not yet complete,
of Ksemendra’s works as reviewed above ; the poet’s reinstalla¬
tion in the academic sphere came about as a natural corollary.
In this connection we can hardly afford to miss the fact that
120
Ksemendra
some of the smaller works of Ksemendra obviously succeeded
in winning the interest of scholars at home and abroad. Some
such works were rendered into foreign languages chiefly during
the period from the last decade of the nineteenth to the close
of the first quarter of the twentieth century. Thus, to provide
but a few examples, we have some extracts from Darpadalana
edited and translated into German by B. A. Hirszbant in
1892. 77 The Samayamatrka was also rendered into German
by J. J. Meyer in 1903. 78 The Kalavilasa was translated into
German by° R. Schmidt in 1914 79 ; and the complete text of
Darpadalana was done into German by the same scholar in
1915. 80 A French translation of the Samayamatrka is known
to have been published in 1920. 81 It is reported that an
English translation of the book was published in 1927. 82
Mention may here be made of the valuable treatise by Dr.
Survakanta, entitled ‘Ksemendra Studies’. It was published
in 1954 A.D. 83 A special value of the book consists in the
fact that it comprises an English translation 84 of Ksemendra’s
Kavikanthabharana, Aucityavicaracarca and Suvrttatilaka.
In view of the above account, it may perhaps be stated
that scholars’ endeavour during the concluding three decades
of the last century and even after in recovering the works of
the polvhistor Ksemendra and in restoring the poet and the
man has not been inadequately rewarded. How far Ksemendra
has emerged today from the state of a half-forgotten name
into a familiar figure glowing with life and glory is now a
thing to be assessed and realised by a thorough and critical
survey of the great poet’s contributions to Indian literature and
wisdom.
FOOT-NOTES
Chapter One
1 Cf. Hist, of Ind. Lit. by A. Weber, p. 213, fn. 224. Le'vi
takes care to point out that Weber is inclined to identify
Ksemendra with Ksemankara, the author of one of the
recensions of Simhasanadvatrimsika; he also notes that
Burnell in his Cat. of Skt. Mss. at Tanjore, p. 168b,
identifies Ksemesvara with Ksemendra,—JA, S. VIII, T.
VI, 1885 (Nov.-Dee.), p. 400; ibid, fn. As further
noticed by Le'vi, Ksemendra was named as Ksyomendra
and also as Ksyemendra in the Mss. of Paris which
Burnouf had before him—ibid., p. 398, fn.
2 Cf. Amara, Kanda I, Kalavarga.
5 Op. Cit., Sandhi I, Verse 10.
4 Cf. Ksemendra Studies, by Dr. Suryakanta, p. 93, fn. 7.
B See infra, Chap. IV.
« The principle is: namaikadesagrahane namamatragraha-
nam ; e.g., Bhima for Bhimasena, Bhama for Satyabham^a,
Di for Didda (Raj., ed. Stein, Vol. I, Intro., p. 104),
Soma for Somadeva (Katha., ed. NSP, 1930, Intro,
verses 12 and 13) ; Cf. Kirat. I, si. 25, and Mallinatha
thereon.
7 A king of Kashmir (A.D. 950-958) ; he is said to have
borne the nickname ‘Ksema’ with the name of his beloved
wife Didda prefixed. Cf. Raj. VI. 150-187, and Stein’s
Notes on Raj. VI. 177.
8 One of the favourites of the Kashmirian king Ananta of
the eleventh century. Cf. Raj. VII. 482.
9 A Kayastha, a small official during Uccala’s rule (A.D.
1101-1111). Cf. Raj. VIIT. 264.
10 Father of Kapila who was minister in charge of Lohara
during Harsa’s rule (A.D. 1089-1101). Cf. Raj. VII.
1299.
11 A Damara lord of king Jayasimha’s time (A.D. 1128-
1149). Cf. Raj. VIII. 2584.
12 An official connected with the army, during Jayasirhha’s
rule. Cf. Raj. VIII. 1430.
122
Ksemendra
13 A renowned Darad general of king Javasiiiiha’s time.
Cf. Raj. VIII. 2868.
14 Cf. Raj. VII. 73, 102.
15 Cf. Raj. VI. 186.
18 Cf. Vikram. XVIII. 23, Raj. VI. 173, and Raj., ed.
Stein, Vol. II, p. 452.
17 A pupil of Jinabhadra Suri (author of the BalabodhinI,
a commentary on the Kumarasambhava) of Kharatara-
gaccha, and the author of a commentary on Kalidasa’s
Meghaduta (Peters. III. 395, VI. 346). He wrote a
commentary also on Vrttaratnakara of Kedarabhaua. We
also know of one Ksemahamsagani who is the author
of a commentary on the Vagbhatalamkara of Vagbhata,
the son of Soma, of the 12th century (Cat. Cat. ; Krishna.,
Art. 867). Dr. De takes these two Ksemas as identical
(Cf. Aspects of Sanskrit Literature, by Dr. S. K De
p. 202).
18 Author of “Prabodhacandrodaya”, a work on Medicine
(Cat. Cat,; Buhler’s Cat., Fasc. IV, p. 228, Ms. No. 76).
19 Author of a treatise on Sex-science, entitled “Ratiniti-
mukula” (Krishna., Art. 1083).
20 Author of a treatise on Music, entitled “Ragamala” com¬
posed in 1570 A.D. (Cat. Cat.; Krishna., Art. 1027).
This Ksemakarna should not be confused with another
person bearing the same name who happens to be the
second of the five sons of Lala, a noted astronomer of
Kinyakubja (Cat. Cat.; Peters. V, Index of Authors,
p. xii).
21 Composed in Samvat 1332 a commentary on the Brhat-
kalpasutra of Bhadrabahu and its Churni (Peters. V,
Index of Authors, p. xii; ibid., Extracts from Mss.,
pp. 101-104, Ms. No. 60).
Author of “Saubhagyakalpalata”, a work classed under
Tantra (Cat. Cat.; Buhler’s Cat., Fasc. IV, p. 270,
Ms. No. 109).
23 Author of “Nirnayasara" and “Sarasvata-prakriya” (Cat.
Cat.).
Foot-Notes
123
24 Composed a work on Metrics, entitled “Vrttaramaspada'’
(Krishna., Art. 1100).
28 He was a Jain and lived in the beginning of the 14th
century. He composed a prose summary in Sanskn
with verses at the beginning of the Marathi version of the
tales of “Simhasanadvatrimsika” (Cat. Cat.; Peters. ,
List of Mss., No. 398, p. 258 ; Winternitz Vol. Ill,
Pt I p 371 ; The Chronology of India, by C. M. Dun,
p.' 261; Krishna., Art. 429). It deserves notice that
in the concluding portion of the extract from the manus¬
cript of the said work as given by Peterson (Peters. ^,
p 190) we have ‘Ksemankaragani, and not ‘Kseman-
karamuni’ as the name of the author (cf. “Ksemafikarena
ganina varagadyapadyabandhena .... ) •
sfl jj e was a cousin-pupil of Abhinavagupta, the great Saiva
philosopher, and a senior contemporary of the polymath.
Ksemendra with whom he was first confused by Prof.
Peterson.
27 He is also named Ksemaraja in the Catalogus Catalogorum.
He composed two treatises on Medicine, entitled “K?e-
makutuhala” and “Cikitsasarasanigraha” and some three
other works (Cat. Cat., Peters. Ill, App. Ill, P- 399;
Kielhorn’s Cat., p. 212; Kashmir Report, App. I,
p. xxxiv. No. 525).
** He is quoted in the Subhiatavall where the poet’s name
appears as Bhadanta Ksemavrddhi (See under ‘Varsah’,
Quotation No. 1730).
29 s on 0 f Raghunanda of Istikapura and author of Tattva-
samasavyakhya” and “Nyayaratnakara” (Cat. Cat.).
80 Author of “Kamasastra” (Cat. Cat., Peters. II, 110).
81 A younger contemporary of Rajasekhara, and a court-
poet of king Mahipaladeva (9-10th cent. A.D) of
Kanouj. He composed two dramas, “Candakaulika and
“Naisadhananda” (Cat. Cat.; Peters. Ill, P- 340;
Krishna., Art. 669). He is called Ksemendra too (Win-
ternitz, Vol. m, Pt. I, p. 279, fn. 3).
82 Cf. Geschichte des Buddhismus (tr. into German by A.
124
Ksemciidra
Schiefner), p. 281 (See Winternitz, Vol. Ill Pt I n 89
fn. 3). ’ ’ ’
33 Op. Cit., Fasc. IV, p. 170, No. 320.
34 Cf. Buhler’s Report; Kielhorn’s List; Deccan Cat 1888
VII. 38, X. 366.
35 Cf. Deccan Cat., 1884; Deccan Cat., 1888, xix. i. 288.
30 Cf. Peters. I; Bhau Daji Collection.
37 Op. Cit., p. 11.
88 Op. Cit., p. 28.
39 Ksemendra Studies, p. 26.
40 Cf. Krishna., p. 171, fn. 1.
41 Buhler’s Cat. Fasc. Ill, p. 30, Ms. No. 159.
42 Peters. V, Index of Authors, p. xiii.
43 Cf. Systems of Sanskrit Grammar, bv Dr. Belvalkar
pp. 95-98.
44 Op. Cit., p. 959.
45 Minor Works, Intro., p. 4.
46 IA. Vol. I, p. 307, fn.
47 Op. Cit., p. 79 & p. 81 fn.
48 Cf. Spandasandoha : Colophon (at the end of the book)
Krtirmahamahesvaracaryavaryasrimad-Abhinnvagupta-
padapadmopajivino rajanaka-Ksemarajasya.
Spandamrnaya : Colophon (Spanda I)—iti srimahamahes-
varac^rya-Ksemarajanakanirmite spandanirnaye.
Colophon (Spanda II)—iti srimahamahesvaracarya-
Ksemarajanakanirmite Spandanirnaye.
Colophon (Spanda IV)—k r tih sri-Pratyabhijnak5raprasis-
yasya mahamahesvaracarya-srTmad-Abhinavaguptapatha-
dattopadesasya sri-Ksemarajasyeti sivam.
49 Op. Cit., p. 77. The verse is as follows : “Suranamnah
svasisyasya prirthanStirasena tat / Nirnitam Ksemarajena
spharannijagurorguroh / /”
80 Cf. Abhinavagupta, by Dr. Pandey, p. 147.
51 Cf. tatha maya vitatya spandasandohe nirnitam”-Pratya-
bhijnahrdayam, Sutra 10 (p. 24).
“yatha caitat tatha asmadiyat Spandanirnayad avaboddha-
vyam”-Sivasutravimarsini, Sutra 3 (p. 14).
Foot-Notes
125
“etat Spandanirnaye nirSkanksam mayaiva nirnitam”_
Ibid., Sutra 38 (p. 129).
K2 Op. Cit., p. 11.
M Ibid., p. 11, fn.
54 Ibid., p. 11.
88 IA, Vol. XIII, p. 29. • - .
Ibid., p. 29, fn. : “We know of some forty works by
Kscmendra. Ksemaraja, according to Aufrecht, is the
author of as many as seventeen books. Making Ksemen-
dra and Ksemaraja identical means to assign the author¬
ship of about three score works to one single individual,
which is hardly credible”.
67 Ibid., p. 29.
88 Peters. IV, p. xxiii.
89 Sanskrit Poetics, by Dr. De, 1st ed., Vol. I, pp. 140-41..
00 Abhinavagupta, by Dr. Pandey, pp. 153-56.’
61 Kscmendra Studies, by Dr. Suryakanta, pp. 15-16.
82 See infra, Chap. III.
03 Cf. Abhinavagupta, by Dr. Pandey, p. 154.
64 See infra, Chap. III.
88 Cf. Abhinavagupta, by Dr. Pandey, p. 144.
86 See infra, Chap. IV.
87 Cf. Abhinavagupta, by Dr. Pandey pp 144-45
88 Ibid, p. 4.
89 Cf. “Sariikaropanisatsara-Pratyabhijnamahodadheh /
Ksemenoddhriyate sarah samsara-visa-santaye” / /_Intro¬
ductory Verse No. 2, Pratyabhijnahrdayam.
In the colophon to Spanda IV of Spandanirnaya, Ksema¬
raja is described as ‘prasisya’ of ‘Pratyabhijnakara’ and
as one to whom instructions were imparted by his master
(‘natha’), Abhinavagupta. In the fourth concluding
verse of Spandanirnaya. by the word ‘nijaguroh’ Ksema¬
raja obviously intends to mean his guru, Abhinava. In
the third concluding verse of Spandasandoha, he describes
Abhinava as his ‘guru’ and ‘prabhu’. In his Svacchan-
doddyota (Cf. Kashmir Report, App. IT, p. clxix) as
also in the colophon to his Stava-cintamani (Cf. Kashmir
126
Ksemeitdra
Report, App. II, p. clxv, extract), Ksemaraja is des¬
cribed as Abhinavagupta’s ‘sisya’.
71 Cf. Abhinavagupta, by Dr. Pandey, p. 5.
72 Ibid., p. 145.
78 Ibid., p. 4. i!
74 Ibid., p. 3. ; | _ jj
76 Krishna., Art. 836 (p. 747), fn. 6.
76 “Krtih.... Sri-Ksemarajasyeti Sivam”.—Colophon to
Spanda IV, Spandanirnaya. “Sura-n5mnah.... Ksema-
rajena”.—4th concluding verse, Spandanirnaya.
“Iti Srimanmaha- .... Sri-Ksemaraja-viracitayam.... ”—
Colophon to each of the three Unmesas, Sivasutra-
vimarsini. “Krtistalra- -Kscmarajasya”—Colophon,
Stavacintamanivivrti.
77 “Samkaropanisat- ... . Ksemenoddhriyate Sarah....”—
Intro, verse No. 2, Pratyabhijnahrdayani.
“Ksemenarthijanarthitena vivrtam Sri-Spandasutram ma-
nak”.—4th foot of concluding verse No. 3, Spandasan-
doha.
78 “Iti Srimaha.Ksema-Rajanakanirmite Spandanirnaye
_”—Colophons to Spandas I and II, Spandanirnaya.
79 “Krtistatrabhavan- _Srimato Rajanaka-Ksemarajaqarya-
sya ”—Colophon (at the end of the book), Pratyabhijna-
hrdayam. “Krtirmaha- _padapadmopajivino Raja-
naka-Ksemai;ajasya”—Colophon (at the end of the book),
Spandasandoha.
“Iti. .. .Rajanaka-Ksemaraja-madhupa-rajenetyom”—
Colophon, Sambapaiicasikavivaranani.
“Iti Sri-Rajanaka-Ksemaraja-viracite. .. .” — Colophon,
Svacchandoddyota.
80 See infra, Chap. V.
81 Op. Cit., pp. 75-76.
82 See infra, Chap. VIII.
88 Expressions like ‘Abhinavaguptapadapadmopajivin’, ‘Abhi-
navaguptapadapadmamadhuparaja’ etc., so frequently used
by Ksemaraja with reference to himself, and those like
‘Vidyavdhisitadyuti’, ‘Abhinavabodhadityadyuti-’, etc.
used by him with reference to Abhinavagupta are conclu-
Foot-Notes
127
sively indicative of his supreme reverence for him
(Abhinava).
84 Aucityavicaracarca, Upasambara, verse 3.
88 Brhatkathamanjari, Upasariihara, verse 37 ; the same
verse with the halves transposed occurs in Mahabharata-
mafijari (concluding verse 8).
88 Abhinavagupta, by Dr. Pandey, p. 145.
87 Avadanakalpalata, Somendra’s Intro.
88 Abhinavagupta^ by Dr. Pandey, pp. 11-12.
89 Peters. I, p. 11.
90 Op. Cit., p. 224.
Chapter Two
1 Cf. IA, Vol. I, p. 304. The colophon of the Ms. runs
as follows: “iti Vyasadasaparikhya-Ksemendra-viracita
Brhatkatha sampurna.... ”
2 Op. Cit., p. 46.
* Ibid., pp. 45-46.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid., App. I, p. X, Ms. No. 154.
6 Notices of Skt. Mss., by Rajendralal Mitra, Vol. I,
pp. 44, Ms. No. LXXX.
7 The colophon reads as follows: “ifyacarya-sri-Vyasadasa-
paranamadheya-Ksemendrakrte Kalavilasakavye dasamah
sargah”.
8 Op. Cit., p. 75.
9 Op. Cit., Vol. I, p. 141.
10 Ibid., 2nd ed., Vol. I, p. 131.
11 JA, S. VIII, T. VI, 1885 (Nov-Dec), pp. 402-03.
12 Sanskrit Poetics, by Dr. Kane, p. 265 ; Sahitya-Darpana,
ed. Dr. Kane, Intro., p. xcix.
128
Ksemendra
13 . Tabular Account :
No. of colo-
Name of Book. No. of phons having
colophons, no mention of
the poets
name.
No. of colo¬
phons where
‘Vydsaddsa’
occurs along
with 'Ksemen¬
dra 9 .
1. Brhatkathaman-
jarl (Kavyamala)
22
Nil
1
2. Mahabharataman-
jarl (Kavyamala)
20
1
1
3. R am ay an am an -
jarI (Kavyamala)
6
Nil
Nil
4. Lokaprakasa
(Kashmir Series)
4
Nil
Nil
5. Desopadesa
(Kaihmir Series)
9
8 (Nil acc. to
Nil (8 acc.
6. Narmamala
(Kashmir Series) 4 (3 acc.
Skt. Acade.
Series)
3 (Nil acc.
to Skt. Acad.
Series)
1 (3 acc.
to Skt. Acad.
to Do)
to Do.)
7. Samayamatrka
(Kavyamala)
Series)
9
Nil
3
8. Caturvargasam-
graha (Kavyamala)
4
4
/Nil
9. Kavikanthabha-
rana (Kavyamala)
5
Nil
5
10. Suvrttatilaka
(Kavyamala)
3
Nil
3
11. Carucarya
(Kavyamala)
1
Nil
1
12. Kalavilasa
(Kavyamala)
10
Nil
Nil
Foot-Notes
129
13. Tabular Account—Contd.
No. of colo-
Name of Book. No. of phons having
colophons, no mention of
the poets
name.
No. of colo¬
phons where
‘Vyasadasa*
occurs along
with ‘Ksemen-
drd.
13.
Sevyasevakopa-
desa (Kavyamala)
i
Nil
1
14.
Darpadalana
(Kavyamala)
7
Nil
7
15.
Aucityavicaracarca
(Kavyamala)
1
Nil
1
16.
Dasavataracarita
(Kavyamala)
10
Nil
10
17.
Avadanakalpalata
(Bib. Ind. &
Mithila Inst.).
108
Nil
Nil
18.
Nitikalpataru
(BORI)
144
144
Nil
Total
(for 1 to 18)
368
160
34
or,
367
or, 149
or, 44
14 In the Brhatkathamanjari, the colophons of all the
eighteen lambakas, as well as of the first two gucchas
of the first and the first guccha of the second lambaka,
have the poet’s name mentioned as ‘Ksemendra with
‘Sri’ prefixed in some places. But, in the last colophon
the name ‘VyasadSsa’ is given along with the poet’s
original name. In the Mahabharatamafijari, we have the
author’s name given as ‘Ksemendra’ in the colophons of
the parvans, Adi, Virata, Drona, Karna. Salya, Gada,
Sauptika and Stri and the Harivafnsa. The same name
occurs with only ‘Sri’ prefixed to it, in the colophons
of the’parvans, Udyoga, Bhisma, Asvamedhika, Asrama-
9
130
Ksemendra
vasika, Mausala, Mahaprasthanika and Svarga. The
colophon of the Aranya parvan has the title ‘Mahakavi’
prefixed to the name ‘Ksemendra’. The colophon of the
Santiparvan has no name whatever of its author. In the
colophon of the Sabhaparvan, we find the name ‘Ksemendra’
coupled with the word ‘Vyasariipa’ preceding it. In the
Ramayanamanjari, the colophons of the kandas, Ayodhya,
Sundara, Yuddha and Uttara, mention the author’s name
simply as ‘Ksemendra’; in the colophons of the Aranya
and Kiskindhya kandas the same name occurs with
‘Sri’ prefixed to it; and the Balakanda has no colophon
at all. The Samayamatrka gives the name ‘Vyasadasa’
along with ‘Ksemendra’ in the colophons of the first three
Samayas; and the colophons of the remaining five
Samayas as also the last colophon following the conclud¬
ing verses record the name of the poet as ‘Ksemendra
only, with ‘Sri’ prefixed to it.
16 Cf. (i) Desopadesa, ed. Kaul : Colophons of Upadesas,
I to VIII—No mention of the author.
Last Colophon—“Krtih Ksemendrasyeti Sam”.
(ii) Desopadesa, ed. Skt. Acad. Series : Colophons of
Upadesas, I to VIII—“Iti Sri-Vyasadasapara-
khya-Ksemendra-viracite Desopadese.
Last Colophon—“Krtih Ksemendrasyeti Sam”.
(iii) Narmamala, ed. Kaul :
Colophons of Parihasas, I to III—No mention
of the author.
Last Colophon—“Krtir-Vyasadasaparanamnah
Ksemendrasyeti Sivam”.
(iv) Narmamala, ed. Skt. Acad. Series :
Colophons of Parihasas, I to III—“Iti Sri-
Vyasadasaparikhya-Ksemendra-Viracilayam
Narmamalayam. .. .”.
16 Cf. Mahabharatamaiijari, Aranya and Sabha—Colophons.
1T Nitikalpataru, ed. Dr. Mahajan, Intro., p. vii.
18 Ibid.
16 “Sravya Sri-Vyasadasena Samasena Satam Mata /Kse-
mendrena Vicaryeyam Carucarya Prakasita / /”
Foot-Notes
131
20 “Tasyatmajah Sarvamanisisisyah Sri-Vyasadasaparapunya-
nama Ksemendra....//”
21 “Avatara- .... / Sri-Vyasadasah Ksemendr?h kurute sara-
sam stutim / /”
22 “Natvomatanayam Gaurlm Vyasamukhyamunisvaran /
Srl-Vyasadasah Ksemendro Nitikalpatarum Vyadhat//”
23 “ityesa ... . / Sri-Vyasadasanyatamabhidhena Ksemendra-
nama (-bhidhanaKsemendra-) vihitah stavagryah / /”
24 NItikalpataru, ed. Dr. Mahajan, Intro., pp. vi-xit
26 Dr. Kane says: “He calls himself Vyasadasa....”
Sanskrit Poetics, by Dr. Kane, p. 265 ; Sahitya Darpana,
ed. Dr. Kane, Intro., p. xcix.
29 JA, S. Vm, T. VI, 1885, p. 403.
27 Sankaravijayah, by Anandagiri, Bid. Ind., Prakarana IX,
pp. 70-77.
28 Religion of the Hindus, by H. H. Wilson, Vol. I, p. 16.
29 B rhatkath am an jari. KM ed., Upasamhara, verse No. 38.
80 Winternitz, Vol. Ill, Pt. I, p. 258.
81 Ibid., p. 49. fn. 1.
82 Ibid. ; Krishna., Arts. 319, 521, 523, 787 and 938.
88 Krishna., Art. 938.
84 Manorama, Vol. TV, Pt. II, p. 54.
85 Winternitz, Vol. Ill, Pt. I. p. 274, fn. 3.
89 ‘Navlna-Kalidasa’, ‘Abhinava-Jayadeva’, ‘Abhinava-Drami-
dacarya’, ‘Smtinagaraneta’, ‘Abhinava-Bhoja’, ‘Abhinava-
Sankaracarya’, etc.—See New Cat., pp. 223, 227-229.
37 Lokaprakasa, Chap. I, Intro, verse No. 3.
88 IA, Vol. I, p. 307 fn.
39 Kashmir Report, p. 45.
40 Ksemendra Studies, pp. 27-28.
41 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 23.
42 NItikalpataru, ed. Dr. Mahajan, Intro., p. V.
43 Ksemendra Studies, p. 27.
44 Suvrttatilaka ; Subhasitavali, ed. Peterson.
45 KM, gucchaka XIII, Bhiksatanakavyam-editorial note.
49 KM, gucchaka IX, Sundarisatakam-editorial note.
47 Avadanakalpalata, Somendra’s Intro, to the 108th Pallava.
48 Cf. Aucityavicaracarca, Upasamhara, verse No. 3.
132
Ksemendra
49 Cf. Vyasastaka; Bharatamaiijari: Dronaparvan, verse
No. 790, intro, verse of each of the parvans, and so on.
80 Hist, of Skt. Lit., by A. A. Macdonell, p. 376.
81 The Chronology of India, by C. M. Duff, p. 118.
82 Nitikalpataru, ed. Dr. Mahajan, Intro., p. i.
considers the word to be a surname of Ksemendra (See
83 In his entry under ‘Vyasadasa’, however. Dr. Aufrecht
considers the word to be a surname of Ksemendra (See
Cat. Cat.).
84 Op. Cit., p. xi.
88 Peters. I, p. 33; Subh., ed. Peterson, p. 125.
Chapter Three
1 Cf. “It is a fortunate circumstance that several of the
older Kashmir poets, whose works have been preserved
for us, have had the good sense to let us know some¬
thing about their own persons and homes. Raj., ed-;
Stein, Vol. n, p. 374. See also Raj. I. 15, Stein’s Note.
2 Cf. Abhinava’s Tantraloka, Malini-Vijaya-Varttika, Para-
trimsika-Vivarana, etc.
Dr. Pandey observes : “Abhinava, it appears, knew the
importance of biographical information about a writer
in understanding his works. He has, therefore, not
remained silent about himself.”—Abhinavagupta, p. 1.
8 Kashmir Report, p. 46. _ , „ .
4 ZDMG, Band 27, Leipzig, 1873—“Uber die Paddhati
von Cariigadhara”, by Weber, p. 19; JA, S. VIII, T. VI,
1885 (Nov.-Dee.)—“La Brhatkathamanjari De Kshemen-
dra”, by M. Sylvain Le'vi.
8 Kashmir Report, p. 45.
8 IA, Vol. I.
7 Ibid., p. 307.
Foot-Notes
133
8 Cf. Buhler’s letter published in Ind. Stud., XIV, p. 407 ,
_Weber in his Hist, of Ind. Lit. (p. 213, fn. 224) has
referred to this and recorded Buhler’s view on the age
of Ksemendra; Kashmir Report, p. 46.
8 JA, S. Vin, T. VI, p. 400.
10 Subh. ed. Peterson, Intro,
11 Here’Mr. Das refers to Buhler, Le'vi and 'other eminent
writers.’
12 Avadanalcalpalata, ed. S. C. Das and H. Vidyabhusana,
1888 Vol. I, Prefatory Note, pp. vi-vii.
» See Macdonell, Hist, of Skt. Lit., p 289 ; Keith, Hist, of
Skt. Lit., p. 135; Keith, Cl. Ski. Lit. (4th ed.), p. 54;
Winternitz, Hist, of Ind. Lit., Vol. Ill, Pt. I, P- >
Krishnamachariar, Hist, of Cl. Skt. Lit., p. 171 ; Dasgupta
and De, Hist, of Skt. Lit., p. 554 ; T. Aufrecht, Cat. Cat.;
E. Krishnamacharya, Suktimuktavali, Intro, p. 30; Pt.
J. D. Zadoo Shastri, Lokaprakasa, Foreword, p. 2; etc.
,4 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 20.
i® Ksemendra Studies, p. 7.
i« Ibid., p. 8.
17 Avadanakalpalata, ed. Vaidya, Vol. I, Intro., p. VIII.
is Ibid.
i° Nitikalpataru, ed. Dr. Mahajan, Intro., p. iii.
20 Minor Works, Intro., p. 1.
21 Op. Cit., Upasamhara, v. 37.
22 Op. Cit., Upasamhara, v. 8.
23 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., pp. 20-21
24 Ksemendra Studies, p. 7.
» His edition of Nitikalpataru, Intro., p. ii.
2« Abhinavagupta, by Dr. Pandey, p. 123.
27 Ibid., p. 7.
28 Ksemendra Studies, p. 8.
2» Winternitz, Vol. Ill, Pt. I, p- 24.
80 Sanskrit Poetics, by Dr. Kane, p. 243.
134
Ksemendra
81 Abhinavagupta, by Dr. Pandey, p. 37.
32 Sanskrit Poetics, by Dr. Kane, p. 243.
33 Ksemendra Studies, p. 7.
34 Ibid.
35 NItikalpataru, ed. Dr. Mahaian, Intro., p. iii.
36 Ind. Stud., XIV, p. 407. See also Weber’s Hist, of
Ind. Lit., p. 213, fn. 224.
87 Kashmir Report, p. 46.
38 Subh., ed. Peterson, Intro.
39 Ksemendra Studies, p. 8.
40 Minor Works, Intro., p. 1.
41 Ksemendra Studies, p. 7.
42 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 23.
43 JA, S. Vm, T. VI, p. 400.
44 Sahitya-Darpana, ed. Dr. Kane, Intro., p. xcix ; Sanskrit
Poetics, by Dr. Kane, p. 266.
45 Sanskrit Poetics, by Dr. Kane, p. 243.
46 NItikalpataru, ed. Dr. Mahajan, Intro., pp. ii-iii.
47 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, p. 23.
48 Ksemendranama tanayastasya
Vidvatsu visrutah /
Prayatah Kavigosthisu
namagrahanayogyatam / /
v. 36.
49 Ksemendra Studies, p. 28.
50 Ksemendranama tanayastasya
Vidvatsaparyaya /
Prayatah kavigosthisu
namagrahanayogyatam / /
v. 7.
51 JA, S. Vin, T. VI, p. 400.
52 Avadanakalpalata, ed. Dr. Vaidya, Intro.
88 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 25.
84 Op. Cit., I. 2.
88 Brhatkathamanjari (ed. KM, No. 69, 2nd ed., 1931),
Lambaka IX, Guccha I, Verses 619-623 (pp. 265-266).
Foot-Notes
135
68 It is to be noticed that in quoting the verses, we have
for the sake of cogency of meaning or correctness of
construction made the following changes in respect of
a few words noted below.
Verse No. Form available in the KM ed. Form given here
621 kantikandalitormisu kantikollolitormisu
621 sudha_sukham sudha-mukham
622 dasteva (alt. reading, tisthanti) Tvastreva
622 nirmita nirmitah
623 sukta.. . mekhalah suktarpita....
mekhala
87 Cf. Vikram., I. 21, XVUI. 1-32 ; Raj., I. 26-43.
58 Under ‘Ksemendra Vyasadasa’.
89 Abhinavagupta, by Dr. Pandey, p. 155.
80 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, p. 21.
81 Cf. Raj., ed. Stein, V. 46, Note ; Ibid., Vol. II, p. 455.
Chapter Four
7 JA, S. VIII, T. VI, 1885, p. 401.
2 Ksemendra Studies, p. 9.
3 This is according to the reading accepted by' S. C. Das
and P. L. Vaidya;—see their editions of the Avadana¬
kalpalata.
* Ksemendra Studies, p. 9.
8 Avadanakalpalata, ed. Dr. Vaidya, Vol. T, Intro., p. IX.
6 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 21.
7 Nitikalpataru, ed. Dr. Mahajan, Intro., p. iii.
8 Avadanakalpalata : Somendra’s Intro., V. 1. The verse
is as follows :
Narendranamnah sumatch Srl-Jayapklanuintrinah /
Vamse babhuva* Bhogindro bhogindra iva bhogavan//
9 Ksemendra Studies, p. 9.
136
Ksemendra
10 Avadanakalpalata, Somendra’s Intro., V. 2.
The verse reads as follows :—
Tasya sattvanidheh (sattvanidhih—according to Hodgson
Ms.) sriman gunaratnaganasrayah /
Sunurvanisudhasutih Sindhuh sindhur iva-bhavat / /
• •
11 Op. Cit., Concluding verse no. 3 : Kasmiresvabhavat
Sindhujanma candra ivaparah Prakasendrah.
12 Op. Cit., Concluding verse no. 2.
w Ibid.
14 Nltikalpataru, ed. Dr. Mahajan Intro., p. iii.
15 Kashmir Report, p. 46.
16 JA, S. VIII, T VI, 1885, p. 401.
17 Desopadesa and Namamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 21.
18 Ksemendra Studies, p. 9.
19 Visvakosa.
20 Abhinavagupta, by Dr. Pandey, p. 156.
21 Minor Works, Intro., p. 3.
22 It is to be noted that in the Kavyamala edition of the
Dasavatiracarita we have the name ‘Sinduh’ and not
‘Sindhuh’ as quoted by Dr. Pandey.
23 Dasavataracarita, concluding verse no. 2.
24 Kashmir Report, App. II, p. «xii.
25 JA, S. VIII, T.VI, p. 401.
26 Ksemendra Studies, p. 9.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
29 Desavataracarita, concluding verse no. 2.
30 Ksemendra Studies, p. 9.
31 Op. Cit., Concluding verse no. 31.
32 Op. Cit., Concluding verse no. 1.
33 Mahabharatamanjarl, concluding verse no. 2.
34 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 21.
35 Kasmiresvabhavat Sindhujanma
candra ivaparah /
Prakasendrah sthira yasya
prthivyam klrtikaumudi / /
—Ramayanamanjarl, concluding verse no. 3.
(See Minor Works, p. 422, where the verse occurs under
Foot-Notes
137
Atmavrttam (4), bearing serial no. 1). In the Kavyama a
edition of the book, the verse contains a variant, viz.,
‘prthvyasya’ for ‘prthivyam’; the form, ‘prthvyasya is
obviously made up of the component words, prthv. and
‘asya’; of these, the word, ‘prthvi’ may be explatne as
an Y adjective to ‘kirtikaumudi’, but the element asya
does not appear to serve any purpose whatever and is
evidently redundant and meaningless in the text under
reference. . _ .
1 Sada danardrahastena mahata bhadramurtma /
Sadhu kunjarita yena prapta klrtipatakina / /
-Ramayanamanjari, ed. KM, concluding verse no. 4^
There is a variant, viz., ‘daya’ for ‘dana in tea ov
verse (Cf. Minor Works, p. 422). Here, in consideration
of rhetorical beauty, ‘dana’ is decidedly better than daya.
si Nanarthijanasamkalpapurane
Kalpapadapah.
—Mahabharatamanjari, concluding verse no. 1
Brhatkathamanjari, concluding verse no. 31.
38 Yasya Meror ivodarah kalyanapurnasampadah
_Mahabharatamanjari, concluding verse no.
Yasya Meror ivodarakalyanapurnasampadah
_Brhatkathamanjari, concluding verse no. 3-.
39
Praptastasya gunaprakar&avasasa
putrah PrakaTendratam /
Viprendrapratipaditannadhanabhugosafighakrsiiajinaih
Prakhyatatisayasya tasya tanayah
Ksemendranamabhavat / /
_Dasavataracarita, concluding verse no. 2.
>Asit Prakasendra iti prakiisah Kasmiradesc
rr ’ J „ r*7 n
_Aucityavicaracarca, concluding verse no. 1 ,
Sampurnadanasamtustah prahuata* ^ ;
Indra evasi kimtvekah prakasaste
Mahabharatamanjari, concluding verse
guno’dhikah / /
no. 2.
138
Ksemendra
41 Tasya putrah Prakasendrah Prakasendranibho bhuvi /
Babhuva danapunyena Bodhisattvagunocitah / /
—Avadanakalpalata, Somendra’s Intro., v. 3.
42 Viprendrapratipaditannadhanabhugosaiigha-
krsnajinaih—Dasavataracarita, concluding verse no. 2.
Gobhumikrsnajinavesmadata—Aucityavicaracarca,
concluding verse no. 2.
Avaritamabhudgehe bhojyasatram dvijanmanam
—Mahabharatamafijari, concluding verse no. 3.
Aganeyamabhudgehe Yasya bhojyam dvijanmanam
—Brhatkathamanjari, concluding verse no. 32.
Abhud grhe yasya pavitrasatramacchinnamagra
-sanamagrajanam—Aucityavicaracarca, concluding
verse no. 1.
43 Suryagrahe tribhirlaksairdattva krsnajinatrayam /
Alpaprado’smityabhavatksanam lajjanatananah / /
(Alpa. .. .abhavatsa lajjanatakamdharah)
—MahabharatamafljarT ? concluding verse no. 4;
Brhatkathamanjari, concluding verse no. 33.
44 Cf. “Iti Sri-Prakasendra-pandita-suta-SriK?emendra-viraci-
taucityalamkaroddharah. . . . ” (being the colophon in a
manuscript of the work called Aucityalamkaroddhara in
the BORI collection no. 578/1887-91). See Nltikalpataru,
ed. Mahajan, Intro, p. ii ? fn. 2.
45 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 21.
46 Svayambhu-Sambhu-Vijaye yah Pratisthapya devatah /
Dattva Koticaturbhagam devadvijamathadisu / /
—Mahabharatamanjari, concluding verse no. 5.
Svayambhu-nilaye Sriman yah pratisthapya devatah /
Dattva Koticaturbhagam devadvijamathadisu / /
—Brhatkathamanjari, concluding verse no. 34.
Dr. Buhler says : “The latter (i.e. Prakasendra) was a
great patron of Brahmanas and expended three kotis or
thirty millions (of what is not stated) in various bene¬
factions.” (Kashmir Report, p. 46). Prof. Le'vi obser¬
ves that Prakasendra dispensed with as much as 4 kotis
(40 millions) in pious works, e.g., creation of statues,
Foot-Notes
139
donations to the monasteries, etc. (JA S. VIII, T. VI,
1885, p. 401). According to Dr. Krishnamachariar,
again, “his (i.e. Ksemendra’s) father was a great patron
of Brahmins and expended three crores in various bene¬
factions.” (Hist, of Cl. Skt. Lit., by Dr. M. Krishnama¬
chariar, Art. 68, pp. 170-171). In the words of
Dr. Suryakanta, “Prakasendra spent three crores (of what,
is not mentioned) on the gods, Brahmanas, and mathas
(Ksemendra Studies, p 11.). Also, in the Introduction
(p. 2) of Minor Works of Ksemendra (ed. by Dr. A,
Sharma and others), it is stated : “he (i.e. Prakasendra)
is said to have spent three crores on Devas, Bhudevas
and mathas.” The above statements are evidently based
on the verses quoted above. It may be noticed that the
amount of money, 3 crore or 4 crore, as given in these
statements, is not corroborated by the relevant sources
just at our disposal. It seems strange how the expression
‘koticaturbhaga’ occurring in each of the above-quoted
verses may be taken to mean ‘3 crore’ or ‘4 crore instead
of ‘a quarter of a crore, i.e., 25 lac’ which is obviously
the only plain and legitimate meaning of the word in
question, and which is rightly given by Pt. Kaul (see his
edition of Desopadesa and Narmamala, Intro., p. 21) and
is accepted by the present writer also.
« Cf. Mahibharatamafijari, concluding verse no. 6;
Brhatkathamanjari, concluding verse no. 35 ;
AucityavicaracarcS, concluding verse no. 2.
48 Somendranama Tanayo’tha Tasya
Kavir NiruddhaparanSmadheyah
_Intro, to the 108th Pallava of Avadanakalpalata, verse
no. 4 (first half).
49 Asmin Jinodarakathaprabandhe
Sampurayisyaty avadanasesam.
—Intro, to the 108th Pallava of Avadanakalpalata, verse
no. 4 (second half).
Bhrhganganamiva pituh pranipatya vanim
Sampurayarni prthukavyavisesasesam.
—Ibid., verse no. 15 (second half).
140
Ksemendra
Asmatpitravadananam krte saptottare sate /
Somendrena mayapyekam krtam mangalapuranam / /
—Intro, to Advadanakalpalata, verse no. 14.
50 Cf. Ksemendrastanayastasya Kavindrah Kirticandrika /
Candrasyevodita yasya manasollasini satam / /
(Intro, to Avadanakalpalata^ verse no. 4).
Suktamsubhirvihitasarvasukhopadesam
(Intro, to the 108th Pallava of Avadanakalpalata, verse
no. 9, 2nd foot).
Madhuryadhuryamamrtam Srutipatrapeya-
mamodasadmainukhapadmapade dhvanantlm /
Bhniganganamiva pituh pranipatya vanlm./ /
(Intro, to the 108th Pallava of Avadanakalpalata, verse
no. 15).
51 Cf. “Tatah svapne Bhagavata Jinena.”
(Intro, to Avadanakalpalata, verse no. 11).
Santosaya prasamasukinam nirmitoyam prabandhah
(Intro, to Avadanakalpalata, verse no. 17).
Jinasasanasastresu parinisthitamanasah /
Gambhiragamamarge’smin./ /
(Intro, to Avadanakalpalata^ verse no. 13).
Asmin Jinodarakathaprabandhe
(Intro, to the 108th Pallava of Avadanakalpalata, verse
no. 4, 3rd foot).
52 Intro, to the 108th Pallava of Avadanakalpalata, verse
no. 14.
53 JA, S. VIII, T. VI, 1885, p. 401.
54 Intro, to Avadanakalpalata, verse no. 14.
85 Pan. I. 2. 59.
86 JA, S. VIII, T. VI, 1885, p. 401, fn.
87 Ksemendra Studies, p. 10.
88 Ibid., p. 13.
89 Nitikalpataru, ed. Dr. Mahaian > Intro., p. iii.
60 Op. Cit., Intro., p. 24.
61 Op. Cit., p. 145.
Foot-Notes
141
Chapter Five
1 “The author of this work, Kshemendra, sprang from the
line of the ministers of Kashmir, who traced their origin
to the noble race of the Sakyas”. —Avadanakalpalata,
ed. S. C. Das and H. M. Vidvabhushana, Vol. I, Cal.,
1888, Prefatory Note, p. V.
2 Raj. I. 101-107 ; Raj., ed. & tr. Stein, Vol. I., Intro.,
pp. 74-75 ; The Dynastic History of Northern India, by
Dr. H. C. Ray, p. Ill; Early History and Culture of
Kashmir, by Dr. S. C. Ray, pp. 143, 161 (Note 19)
A History of Kashmir, by P. N. K. Bamzai, pp. 64-65.
3 Compare : “It is stated in the Mahavamsa-Tika that
during the life time of the Buddha, some Sakyas being
oppressed by Vidudabha, fled to the Himalayas where
they built a beautiful city which was known as the Mori-
yanagara (Mauryanagara).. . .The Buddhists hold that
Asoka and the Buddha were of the same family as the
former was descended from Chandragupta who was born
of the queen of one of the kings of Moriyanagara. ’
Some Ksatriya Tribes of Ancient Tndia, by Dr. B. C. Law,
p. 199.
It must be noted here that modern scholars are
generally in favour of accepting the view that “the old
Moriya offers a more satisfactory explanation of Maurya,
the name of the dynasty founded by Chandragupta.. ..
(The Age of Imperial Unity, ed. Dr. R. C. Majumdar,
p. 56). In their opinion, therefore, Asoka, grandson of
Chandragupta. belonged to the Ksatriya clan of the
Moriyas. But yet the question persists as to whether the
Moriyas and the Sakyas were originally two distinct tribes
or whether the Moriyas were an offshoot of the Sakya
race or whether they were a new tribe brought into
existence by the matrimonal alliance of the Sakyas with
the neighbouring hill-people inhabiting the tract of Pipp-
halivana where, according to the Buddhist tradition, some
Sakyas, during Vidudabha’s devastating attack on Kapi-
lavastu, took refuge and ultimately settled down. In
142
Ksemendra
the Buddhist tradition, as Dr. R. K. Mookerji puts it,
“Chandragupta is described as a scion of the Ksatriya
clan of Moriyas, an offshoot of the noble and sacred sept
of the Sakyas who gave the Buddha to the world. Ac¬
cording to the story, these Moriyas separated from the
parent community to escape from its invasion by the
cruel Kosala King, Vidudabha and found refuge in a
secluded Himalayan region. This region was known for
its peacocks, whence the immigrants also became known
as Moriyas, i.e. those belonging to the place of peacocks.
Moriya is from ‘Mora’ which is the Pali word for peacock,
corresponding to the Sanskrit word ‘Mayura’. Another
version of the story mentions a city called Moriyanagara
after the fact that it was built with ‘bricks coloured like
peacocks’ necks’. The people who built the city became
known as Moriyas. The Mahabodhivamsa (ed. Strong,
p. 98) states that Prince (Kumara) Chandragupta, born
of a dynasty of Kings (narindakula-sambhava), hailing
from the city known as Moriyanagara, which was built
by Sakyaputtas, being supported by the Brahmana (dvija),
Chanakya, became king at Pataliputra”. Chandragupta
Maurya And His Times, by Dr. R. K. Mookerji, p. 22.
Compare : “Moriya—A Khattiya clan of India. Among
those claiming a share of the Buddha’s relics were the
Moriyas of Pipphalivana. They came rather late and had
to be satisfied with a share of the ashes. Candagutta,
grandfather of Asoka, was also a Moriyan. The Maha-
vamsa-Tika contains an account of the origin of the
name. According to one theory they were so called
because they rejoiced in the prosperity of their city
(attdnath nagara-siriyd moddpiti , eiha sanjala ti, dakk -
rassa rakdram katvd Moriya ti laddhavohard) . They
lived in a delightful land. Another theory connects the
name with mora (peacock) .The city which they founded
had buildings of blue stone, like the neck of the peacock,
and the place always resounded with the cries of peacocks.
It is said that the Moriyans were originally Sakyan princes
of Kapilavatthu, who escaped to the Himalaya regions
Foot-Notes
143
to save themselves from the attacks of Vidudabha, and
established a city there. Thus Asoka was a kinsman of
the Buddha, for Candagutta was the son of the chief
queen of the Moriyan King. The King was killed by
a neighbouring ruler and the city pillaged. Asoka s
mother, Dhamma, was also a Moriyan princess.’
_ Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, by Dr. G. P.
Malalasekhara, Vol. II, p. 673. Compare also : Note 15,
p. 972, Ibid. ’
4 Avadanakalpalata, ed. S. C. Das and H. M. Vidyabhu-
shana, Vol. I.
5 Nilamatapurana, ed. Kanjilal and Zadoo, verses 813 &
815, p. 66 ; ibid., App. A, p. 7. See also Dr. Buhler’s
Kashmir Report, p. 41.
0 Cf. C. H. Tawney’s tr. of Kathasaritsagara, ed. N. M.
Penzer, Vol. I, R. C. Temple’s Foreword, p. XIV;
Address by Dr. V. Raghavan General President, A.I.O.
Conf., 21st Session, 1961, p. 5.
7 Cf. Mangalyam Brahmanasya syat
Ksatriyasya balanvitam /
Vaisyasya dhanasamyuktam
Sudrasya tu jugupsitam / /
^ — Manu II. 31.
Brahmanadinam yathakrarnam mangala-bala-dhana-ninda-
vacakani subha-bala-dhana-nindavacakiini namani karta-
vyani—Kulluka on Manu II. 31.
Athava mangalarh dharmastatsadhanam
mangalyam nama katamat punar dharma-sadhanam nama
ya ete devatasabda—Indro’gnirvayuh tatha rsisabdah.
—Medhatithi on Manu II. 31.
8 See Chap. I of the present treatise.
9 Cf. Sarmavad Brahmanasya syad
Rajno raksasamanvitam /
Vaisyasya pustisamyuktam
Sudrasya praisyasamyutam / /
—Manu II. 32.
Udaharanani tu Subhasarml,
144
Ksemendra
Balavarma, Vasubhutih. DInadasa
iti. Tatha ca Yamah—
Sarma devasca Viprasya varma trata ca Bhubhujah /
Bhutirdattasca Vaisyasya dasah Sudrasya karayet/ /
Visnupurane’pi (3.10.9) uktam—
Sarmavad Brahmanasyoktam
Vamieti Ksatrasamyutam /
Gupta-dasatmakam nama
Prasastam Vaisya-Sudrayoh / /
—Kulluka on Manu II. 32.
10 Medhatithi on Manu II. 31.
11 Winternitz, Hist, of Ind. Lit., Vol. Ill, Pt. I, p. 258,
Uttara-Ramacaritam, ed. Haridasa Siddhantavagisa, Intro,
p. 13.
12 See Karpuramanjari, ed. M. Ghosh, Intro., p. LXIX.
13 Manu VII. 54, 58, 62. See also : Mahabharatera
Samaja, by Sukhamaya Bhattacarya, p. 396.
14 Karpuramanjari, ed. Dr. M. Ghosh, Intro., p. LXIX.
15 Cf. Hist, of Dharma Sastra, by Kane, Vol.' Ill, p. 108.
16 Raj. IV. 211, 215, 246-262, and Stein’s Notes.
17 Raj. VI. 333.
48 Raj. VII. 106.
10 Raj. VII. 208.
20 Raj. VII. 894.
21 Raj. VIII. 560.
22 Cf. Acetanacetanadhyaropaparicavo yatha macchisya-Sri-
Bhattodayasimhasya.Kavikanthabharana (Minor
Wortas, p. 82).
23 Cf. Vivekaparicayo yatha macchisya-rajaputra-
Laksmanadityasya—Kavikanthabharana (Minor Works,
p. 83).
24 Lokaprakasakosa, Kashmir Series, p. 1, v. 8.
25 Cf. the meanings of the expressions ‘Bhatta-bhagavatar-
thita’, ‘Bhatta-bhojaka-sraddha,’ ‘Bhatta-vyaya’, as noted
in App. V of Minor Works of Ksemendra, p. 555.
26 Cf. Vacaspatya, Monier Williams.
Foot-Notes
145
Cf. Dasariipaka ii. 64; Sahitva-Darpana VT. 167.
28 Cf. Vacaspatya.
20 Cf. Monier Williams.
30 Op. Cit., Concluding verse no. 4.
31 Minor Works, Intro. ; p. 4.
32 See. Karpuramanjari, ed. Dr. M. Ghosh, p. LXIX.
33 See Sanskrit Poetics, by Dr. Kane, p. 215.
34 See: Sanskrit Poetics, by Dr. Kane, p. 215; Karpu-
ramaiijari, ed. Dr. M. Ghosh, p. LXrX.
In this connection we may be allowed to recall some
reevant verses of the Manusamhita, which read as
follows :
Upaniya tu yah sisyam Vedamadhyapayed Dvijah /
Sakalpam sarahasyaiica tamacaryam pracak«ate / /
Ekadesantu Vedasya Vedanganyapi va punah /
Yo ’dhyapayati vrttyarthamupadhyayah s a ucyate / /
Nisekadini karmani vah karoti yathav'idhi / /
Sambhavayati cannena sa Vipro Gururucyate / /
(Manu, Chap. II, verses 140-142).
Tt is apparent that Ksemendra was neither an Acdrya,
nor an Upddhyaya, nor a Guru in the strictly technical
sense of the term as laid down in the text quoted above
.* Q P art from question of his caste, there is no
evidence to show that he ever was a teacher of the Veda
or the Vedangas, with or without remuneration for his
subsistence, or that he used to conduct the investiture
ceremony of his pupils or perform according to rules
the sacramental rites, Niseka etc., and so on. But in
another verse of the Manusamhita. there is provided a
relaxation in respect of the specific import, permissible
for the word, ‘Guru’. The verse is as follows:
Alpam va bahu va vasya Snitasvopakaroti yah /
Tam apiha gurum vidyaCchrutopakrivaya taya / /
(Manu, Chap. TT, verse 149).
10
146
Ksemendra
Following is the relevant extract from Medhatithi’s
commentary on the above verse:
Ya upadhyayo yasya manavakasyopakaroti Srutasya
Srutenetyarthah. Yasya Srutasya sarnanadhikaranyam
Vedavisayasya Vedaiigavisayasya va Sastrantara-
visayasya Tarka-Kala-Sastrasya yadalpam bahu va
tenopakarotityadhyaharah. ... Guruvrttistatra
kartavya tadvyapadeso va tatracaryadisabdavat smaryate.
From the above it appears that an upadhyaya or a teacher
who imparts knowledge of any measure in any subject
may be called and treated as a 'Guru’. An Upadhyaya,
again, according to Manu’s definition, is not necessarily
required to be a Brahmana;—this is but obvious from
the fact that, unlike in verges 140 and 142 quoted above,
there is no express injunction in the relevant verse (i.e.,
v. 141) regarding the teacher’s caste, and further that
the word ‘Dvijah’ (taken by Kulluka to mean a Brah-
Tnana) occurring in verse 140 cannot possibly claim
continuity in verse 141, for, otherwise, the continuity
of the word (Dvijah) would well extend up to verse
142, and the word ‘Viprah’ conveying an identical
meaning would not have any ground in the said verse
for justification. In the light of the above, we may
consider ourselves to be justified in having proposed that
a non-Brahmana individual, according to the Indian
Code, can very well be a teacher and be regarded as
an Upddhydya or a Guru.
35 Cf. Dasavataracarita, Karkyavatara.
86 Op. Cit., verse 20.
37 Brhatkathamanjari, Upasamhara, v. 39 ;
Mahabharatamanjari, Upasamhara. v. 10;
Avadanakalpalata, Intro., v. 5.
38 Brhatkathamanjari, Upasamhara, v. 41.
39 See supra, Chap. V, para 1.
40 Some Ksatriya Tribes of Ancient India, by Dr. B. C.
Law, Chap. V; The Age of the Imperial Unity, ed.,
Dr. R. C. Majumdar, p. 16 ;
Foot-Notes
147
Cf. Sakavrksapraticchannam vasam
yasmat pracakrire/Tasmad Iksvaku-vamsyaste
bhuvi Sakya iti srutah / /
—Bharata in his commentary on the Amarakosa,
quoted in the Sabdakalpadruma.
Chapter Six
1 Ksemendra Studies, p. 6.
2 Cf. Ekadhike’vde vihitascatvarimse
sakartike /
Rajye Kalasa-bhubhartuh Kasmiresva
-cyutastavah / /
3 Ananta was a boy of eight when he was made king of
Kashmir to the utter frustration of the evil design of
her licentious mother, Srilekha who had endeavoured to
secure the crown for herself. This was in the year
A.D. 1028. After a reign of thirty-five years, in the
year A.D. 1063, at the persuasion of his wife, Suryamati,
also called Subhata, Ananta formally abdicated in favour
of his son, Kalasa. The royal couple soon realised their
blunder, and Ananta took no time to resume charge of
the administration, although Kalasa was still the nominal
king. This continued until A.D. 1076, when, following
a rupture between Kalaia and his parents, Ananta, in¬
duced by his all-powerful wife, retired to Vijayesvara
(Vijabror). The hostilities between the father and his
son went on still unabated till at last, by setting fire
to the town of Vijayesvara, Kalasa deprived his parents
of all their wealth and pressed for Ananta’s banish¬
ment. The old king lost patience at last and held
Suryamati responsible for all the evils and their suffer¬
ings and after a violent altercation with his wife, he
committed suicide. The king was over sixty-one years
at the time of his death which occurred in A.D. 1081.
Kalasa became a full-fledged king, and having ruled over
148
Ksemendra
Kashmir for a further period of eight years, died in
A.D. 1089 at the age of forty-nine.
4 See : M. A. Stein, Rajatarangini, Vol. I, Intro., pp. 109-
111, and the Eng. tr. of the relevant verses; R. C. Dutt,
A Note on Kalhana’s Rajatarangini (The Hindu History
of Kashmir, by H. H. Wilson, App. X) ; C. M. Duff,
The Chronology of India, pp. 114, 125, 131-133 ; H. C.
Ray, The Dynastic History of Northern India, Vol. I,
pp. 138-146; D. C. Ganguly, The Struggle for Empire
(The History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. V),
pp. 97-98 ; S. C. Ray, Early History and Culture of
Kashmir, pp. 60-63 ; P. N. K. Bamzai, A History of
Kashmir, pp. 139-141 ; P. V. Kane, Sahitya-Darpana,
Intro., p. xcix; M. Wintemitz, A. History of Indian
Literature, Vol. Ill, Pt. I, p. 56, fn. 1 ; K. C. Pandey,
Abhinavagupta—An Historical and Philosophical study,
p. 150; Siiryakanta, Ksemendra Studies, p. 6. See also:
M. A. Stein, Rajatarangini, I. 13—Note; G. Buhler,
Kashmir Report, pp. 46-47, and his edition of Bilhana’s
Vikramankadevacarita, Intro., p. 20; A. Weber, The
History of Indian Literature, p. 213, fn. 224 ; R. C.
Temple, Tawney’s tr. of Kathasaritsagara, Vol. T, Intro.,
p. xxxii; M. Krishnamiichariar, History of Classical
Sanskrit Literature, p. 171 ; P. Peterson, his edition of
Subhasitavali, Intro. ; Kathasaritsagara, Nirnayasagara,
4th ed., Intro., p. 1 ; Suktimuktavali, ed. Embar Krishna-
macharya, Intro., p. 24; Kalavilasa, Kavyamala I,
editorial note; T. Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum.
N. B. :
A History of Sanskrit Literature, by Dr. S. N. Dasgupta
and Dr. S. K. De, Vol. I, p. 554—“Ananta ruled from
1020 to 1063 A.D.”; The Indian Antiquary, 1872,
Vol. I, p. 315—“From a reliable source it has been
ascertained that Sangrama ascended the throne in 1027
A.D., and his son Ananta in 1052, and Harsha the
grandson of the latter in 1059”—(“On some Eminent
Characters in Sanskrit Literature”, by M. Seshagiri
Sastri).
Foot-Notes
149 ,
5 A History of Sanskrit Literature, by Dr. S. N. Dasgupta
and Dr. S. K. De, Vol. I, p. 96, fn. 2.
6 op. at., I. 3.
7 Cf.
Ksemendrena pranayivipadam
harturascaryakartur-
Bhubhrdbharturbhuvanajayino’-
nantarajasya rajye.
Op. Cit., Vinyasa III, verse No. 40.
8 Cf. Yasyasih parivarakrt tribhuvana-
prakhyatasllasruteh
Sarvasyavanatena yena nitaram
prapta visesonnatih /
Asah sltalatam nayatvaviratam
yasva pratapanalas-
Tasya 5rimadnAnantarajann>ateh
kale kilayam krtah / /
9 Cf. Kasmiresu prthupratapasavituh
kirty arh su tar apateh
Praudharativananalasya dhanada-
syendrasya bhiimandale /
Visvakaravatah punah kaliyuge Visnor-
ivotsahino
Rajye srimad Anantaraianrpateh
kavyodayo’yam krtah / /
10 Cf. Adricchidravinidraraudraphanlnam
-atrasti kalam kulam
Mattastatra vasanti dantipatayah
simhasrayeyarh guha /
Ityartiprativaddhavrddhasabari-
vargena margagraga
Yadvairipramadah sada vanamahl-
gadhagrahe varitah / /
(Samayamatrka, concluding verse No. 3).
150
Ksemendra
11 Cf. Vlrasyartadayavidheyamanasah
sflavrtalamkrter
Nistrimsah paradarakrj jayavidhau
yasyaikakaryah suhrt /
Tasyanantamahipatervirajasah
prajyadhirajyodaye
Ksemendrena subhasitam krtamidarii
satpaksaraksaksamam / /
(Samayamatrka, concluding verse No. 4).
12 Cf. Yo matsyakurmadivicitrarupair
-ascaryakari hrdayastharatnah /
Srlman Anantah sphutasankhacakrah
sriye’stu Visnurvibhavodadhirvah / /
It may be noted that the above verse admits of inter¬
pretation well without reference to king Ananta, in which
case, however, the word ‘Anantah’ as it occurs there
should be taken in its literal sense, as an adjunct to
‘Visnuh’.
• • •
13 Cf.Kirtistarabhrkutir-udita papaiatrupramalhe
Diksutsahah kimapi sugato lokanathasya yasya /
Tasmin Ksonipatiparivrdhe sasati ksam-Anante
Santosaya prasamasukhinam nirmito’yarh prabandhah / /
—Avadanakalpalata, Somendra’s Intro., verse no. 17.
14 Raj. VII. 167 et seq.
Cf. Kathasaritsigara, Epilogue, verse no. 3—Eng.
tr. with Note (C. H. Tawney’s “The Ocean of Story ,
ed. N. M. Penzer, Vol. IX, p. 87).
15 Cf. Tasyatmajo namad-aiesamahisamauli-
manikyakayanikafikrtapadapithah /
Sriman-Ananta iti tatkulakalpavrksah
sauryaikarasir-udapadyata cakravarti / /
Dvaragrasimani ca yasya nikrttakanthah
ksiptvodaram narapater-luthati sma murdha/
Sevagato jitamahaharicakracaru-
klrtisravena paritosamivaitya Rahuh / /
—Op. Cit., verses nos. 2 and 3.
Foot-Notes
151
16 Op. Cit., verses nos. 33-39.
it Kathisaritsagara, Epilogue, verse no. 9. See below
Dr L D. Barnett’s Eng. tr. published in C. H. Tawney s
tr. of Kathasaritsagara (“The Ocean of Story”), ed.
N. M. Penzer, Vol. IX (pp. 88-89) :
“Her son was the blest monarch King Kalasa, who,
though a unique tilaka on the circle of the earth, was
nevertheless an-^Txka-lagna, and, though a friend to
the gum, was full of rich ambrosia.” (See also the re-
levant notes appended—Ibid., p. 89, fn. 1 ■
third foot of the verse may be translated as follows .
Though malignant (asiva) to the hostile group, he
was an incarnation of (god) Siva (or, the supreme
good) [S(s)ivavatarah].
is See Vikram. XVIII. 51-63 ; see also BQhler’s Intro,
(pp. 9-10) to his edition of the work.
10 Op. Cit., verse no. 53.
20 Ibid., verse no. 56.
21 Winternitz, Vol. Ill, Pt- P- ^53.
22 Vikram., ed. Buhler, Intro., pp. 20-21.
28 Op. Cit., Vol. I, Intro., p. xxxii.
24 Subh., ed. Peterson, Intro.; Minor works, Intro., p.
Chapter Seven
1 Ksemendra Studies, p. 10.
2 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Preface, p. 3.
3 Krishna., p. 171 (Art. 68).
4 Minor Works, Intro., pp. 1, 23.
5 Samskrtasahityetihasah, by ACarya Sri-Ramacandra Misra,
p. 57.
* Cf. Dr. Buhler’s Kashmir Report; Weber quoting Buhler
in his Hist, of Indian Lit. p. 213, fn. 224; Peters. IV,
p. xxiii; JA, S. VIII, T. VI, p. 400; Aufrecht’s Cat.
152
Ksemendra
Cat. ; Raj., ed. Stein, I. 13—Note, Note H ? p. 308 ;
Hist, of Skt. Lit., by Dr. Dasgnpta and Dr. De, Vol. I,
p. 96, fn. 2 and p. 554 ; Avadanakalpalata, ed. S. C. Das
and H. M. Vidyabhusana, Vol. I, Prefatory Note; Katha-
saritsagara, ed. Durgaprasad etc., Intro. ; Suktimuktavali,
ed. Embar Krishnamacharya, Intro. 5 and so on.
7 Compare, for example, the accounts of the following
kings : Lalitaditya Muktapida, Raj. IV. 245 ; Jayapida,
Raj. IV. 486-497; Avantivarman, Raj. V. 32-34 ; Harsa,
Raj. Vn. 934-937, 941, 946-949; Jayasiihha, Raj. VIII.
2393-2399; etc
8 Supra, pp. 76-77.
9 Cf. Ksemendra Studies, p. 28; Nitikalpataru, ed. Dr.
Mahajan, Intro., pp. ii & v.
10 Supra, p. 75.
11 See Peters. I, p. 8, fn. (“A Kalasa however is quoted in
the Sarngadharapaddhati-Aufrecht’s article in the magazine
of the German Oriental Society”). In the Subhasitavali
(see Peterson’s edition), as many as eleven verses are
attributed to Kalasa, also named Kalasaka. They are as
follows :
Topic
No.
Ascribed to
Asirvacana
52
Kalasa
Asirvacana
53
Kalasa
Suryenduvarnanam
562
Kalasak a
Meghah
850
Kalasaka
Samudrah
•
880
Kalasaka
Samudrah
881
Kalasaka
Samklrnavastupaddhatih
996
Kalasaka
Virahinam pralapah
1280
Kalasaka
Virahinarh pralapah
1322
Kalasaka
Strlvilokanam
1465
Kalasa
Bahu
1529
Kalasaka
That Kalasa and Kalasaka
are
identical is admitted by
scolars (Cf. Peterson’s Intro, to
his edition of Subhasi-
Foot-Notes
153
tavali; Suvrttatilaka, ed. KM, No. IT, p. 38, fn. 1 ;
Minor Works, Intro., p. 23). It may be pointed out as
an additional evidence in suppoft of this identification
that the verse bearing no. 1280 in the Subhasitavali
(Peterson’s ed.), which is ascribed to Kalasaka in the
said anthology is quoted with slight variations (i.e.,
‘madamantharani’ for ‘madamanthariyah’, and ‘natyar-
thavanti’ for ‘napyarthavanti’) in Jalhana’s Suktimuktavali
where it is attributed to Kalasa ; further, the verse attri¬
buted to Kalasaka in Ksemendra’s Suvrttatilaka appears
with the two halves transposed and some variants (i.e.,
‘locanapratisariralanchitam’ for ‘locanapratisarirasaritam,
and ‘attamattamadhikantam’ for ‘attamattamapikantam’)
in the Sukimuktavali under he name of Kalasa as its
author; and this Kalasa is considered to be identical with
Ananta’s son, King Kalasa of Kashmir (Cf. Suktimukta¬
vali ed. Embar Krishnamacharva, Intro., p. 24). In addi¬
tion to the abovementioned verse which is under ‘Viyogi-
pralapapaddhati’ (Sec. 43. p. 152), there occurs in the
Suktimuktavali (ed. as above) one more verse attributed
to Kalasa under ‘Jalakridapaddhati’ (Sec. 67, p. 246).
12 Kathasaritsagara, Epilogue, verse no. 9.
18 Cf. “Sa ca Bhoja-narendrasca danotkarsena visrutau /
Sun tasmin ksane tulvam dvavastam kavi-bandhavau / /”
Raj. VTT. 259.
Cf. Dr. Buhler’s interpretation of the above verse :
“Kalhana asserts_that Bhoja and Kshitiraja or Kshi-
tipati were in the time after 1062 the only true friends
of poets. Kalhana says, tasmin kshane tulvam dvavastarhi
kavibandhavau. and this tasmin kshane, ‘at that moment’,
refers to the period, when, after the coronation of Kalasa
in 1062. Kshitiraja had become a samnyasi and sometimes
visited king Ananta in order to console him.”—Vikram.,
ed. Buhler, Tntro., p. 23, fn. 1.
14 Kathasaritsagara, Epilogue, verse nos 11 and 12.
15 Darpadalana, TIT. 10.
154
Ksemendra
Chapter Eight
1 Cf. Minor Works, Intro., p. 2.
2 Cf. Abhinavagupta, by Dr. K. C. Pandcy, pp. 10-11.
2 Ibid., p. 21.
4 Ibid., pp. 153-161.
o Ibid., p. 155.
6 Ibid.
7 Cf. “Akhyatopayoge”-Pan. I. 4. 29.
8 Cf. Sarvatra pratibodha-.guroh/
Srutva samyagidam prabhor Abhinavat
.Sri-Spandasutram manak / /
-Spanda-Sandoha of Ksemaraja, Concluding verse
no. 3.
9 Sanskrit Poetics, by Dr. Kane, p. 265.
10 Winternitz, Vol. Iir, Pt. I, p. 24. [It may be noted
that the portions within parentheses are additions by the
translator—Cf. Ibid., Translator’s Note, para 2.]
11 Avadinakalpalata, ed. Vaidya, Intro., p. VIII.
12 JA, S. VIII, T. VI, p. 401.
13 Kashmir Report, p. 46; Peters. I, p. 11; Peters. IV,
p. xxiii.
14 Minor Works, p. 61—the edition of the text under refer¬
ence is based on the printed edition of the same published
in the Chowkhamba Series—Ibid., p. 30; Kavyamala,
Part I, p. 159 and fn.
15 Sanskrit Poetics, by Dr. Kane, p. 264.
18 The eight names are : Bhatta Narayana, Bhatta Bana,
Bhatta Prabhakara, Bhattenduraja, Bhatta Lattana, Bhatta
Bhallata, Bhatta Bhavabhuti, and Bhatta Tauta.
17 Winternitz, Vol. Ill, Pt. I, p. 24.
78 JBRAS, Vol. XVI, Art. XII.
19 JA, S. VIII, T. VI, p. 401.
20 Cat. Cat.
21 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 22.
22 Ksemendra Studies, p. 13.
28 ' Minor Works, Intro., p. 2.
«. —- — -- —. - - - -
Foot-Notes
155
1, Intro., p. IX.
24 Visvakosa.
25 Avadanakalpalata, ed. Vaidya, Vol.
20 Krishna., p. 173, fn. 2.
27 Sanskrit Poetics, by Dr. Kane, p. 264.
28 Manu H. 142.
29 Manu II. 149 ; See also Medhatithi on the same verse.
80 Manu n. 141.
81 Manu II. 141.
82 JA, S. VIII, T. VI, p. 401.
88 Sa jayati samkalpabhavo
Ratimukhasatapatracumbanabhramarah /
Yasyanuraktalalananayanantavilokitam vasatih / /
84 Ksemendra Studies, p. 13.
85 Cf. Srimad-bhagavatacarya-
Somapadavjarenubhih /
Dhanyatam yah param prapto
Narayanaparayanah / /
—Mahabharatamanjari ( concluding portion (following
Harivamsa), v. 9 ; this verse occurs in Brhatkathamaiijari
as v. 38 (upasamhara) with ‘param prapto’ given as
‘param yato’.
86 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 22.
87 Pan. III. 4.21.
88 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 22.
39 Avadanakalpalata, ed. Vaidya, Vol. I, Intro., p. IX.
40 Minor Works, Intro., p. 2.
41 JA, S. VIII, T. VI, p. 402. ‘
42 Sanskrit Poetics, by Dr. Kane, p. 265.
43 Ksemendra Studies, p. 15.
44 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 22.
45 Kashmir Report, p. 46.
48 Krishna., p. 171, Art. 68.
47 Suktimuktavali, ed. E. Krishnamacharya, Intro., p. 30.
48 Cat. Cat.
49 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 22.
80 Ibid.
61 JA, S. Vm, T. VI, p. 402.
156
Ksemendra
52 Cat. Cat.
53 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Intro., p. 22.
54 Kashmir Report, p. 46.
55 Sanskrit Poetics, by Dr. Kane, p. 265.
56 Krishna., 171, Art. 68.
57 Minor Works, Intro., p. 2.
58 Suktimuktavali, ed. E. Krishnamacharya, Intro., p. 30.
50 Ksemendra Studies, p. 15.
00 Visvakosa.
61 Supra, Chap. VIII, fn. 35.
62 Pan. II. 1. 72.
63 Avadanakalpalata, ed. Dr. Vaidya, Vol. I, Intro., p. IX.
64 Op. Cit., Upasamhara, verse no. 41.
65 JA, S. VIII, T. VI, pp. 401-402.
66 Ksemendra Studies, p. 15.
67 Athabhyetya svayam tasya
grham prajiiaprakasavan /
Acaryo Vlryabhadrakhyah
prakhyatasukrtojjvalah / /
Jinasasanasastresu
parinisthitamanasah /
Gambhlragamamarge’smin
yayau ratnapradipatam / /
—Somendra’s Intro, to Avadanakalpalata,
verses nos 12 and 13.
68 The word ‘Ratnapradlpah’ in the present context should
for cogent and better meaning be analysed either as
‘Ratnam eva Pradlpah’ or as ‘Ratnam casau Pradipas ca'
instead of as ‘Ratnanirmitah Pradlpah’ or something like
that.
69 Ksemendra Studies, p. 14.
70 Aucityavicaracarca, Upasamhara, verse no. 3.
71 Minor Works, Intro., p. 2.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid.
74 Ksemendra Studies, p. 11.
Foot-Notes
157
75 “Vyiitpattyai Sarvasisyata”—
Kavikantthabharana, II. 14.
78 Ramayanamanjari, Upasamhara, verse no. 5; Mahabha-
ratamanjari, Upasamhara, verse no. 7.
77 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, pp. 22-23.
Chapter Nine
1 See supra, p. 30.
2 Along with verse no. 46—See : Minor Works, p. 3 .
» Sandhi II, along with verse no. 12—See : Minor Works,
p. 68 ; Sandhi V, along with verse no. 55, See: Minor
Works, p. 81.
* Vinyasa, I, along with verse no. 5—See : Minor Works,
p. 87.
5 Cf. ‘Yatha Bhagavato Mahareseh Vyasasya’, ‘Yatha Bhaga-
van Vyasah’, ‘Yatha Bhagavato Vyasasya’.
8 For example : Karpatika. Gandinaka, Candaka, Candraka,
Tuniira, Parivrajaka, Parimala, Panini, Viradeva, Vidya-
nanda, Vidyadhara, Malavakuvalaya, MSlavarudra, Sahila,
Muktakana, Abhinanda, Amaraka, Bhartrhan, Vagbhata,
Varahamihira, Bharavi, Magha, Matrgupta, Snharsa, R F aja-
sekhara, Kalidasa, etc.
7 For example: Bhattendur5ja,Bhatta-Damodaragupta, Bhatta.
Prabhakara, Bhatta-Bana, Bhatta-Vacaspati, Bhatta-
Bhallata, Bhatta-Mayura, Bhatta-Muktikalasa, Sn-Prava-
rasena, Sri-Yasovarmadeva, Bhatta-Sri-Sivasvamin, etc.
s For example : Rajaputra Muktapida, Macchisya-Rajaputra-
Laksmanaditya, Macchisya-MahaSrl-Bhattodayasimha Sn-
mad-Utpalarajadeva, Sri-Bhlmasaheh Sandh.yigrah.kah
Indrabhanuh, Asmad-upadhySya-C.a'ngaka, Vidyadhipatya-
paranaman Ratnakara, etc.
. Kavikanthabharana, Sandhi Il-See : Minor Works, p
68 .
Ibid.
158
Ksemendra
11 Parvans : Sabha, Aranya, Udyoga, Bhisma, Drona, Karna,
Salya, Gada, Sauptika, Stri, Santi, Asvamedhika, Asrama-
vasika, Mausala, Mahaprasthanika, & Svarga, and the
Harivamsa.
72 Harsacarita, Intro, verse no. 3.
18 Atrantare jfianasahasrarasmi-
raparavedamrtasindhusetuh /
Sarasvatiminasaraj ahamsah
Krsno’py-akrsno munir ajagama / /
14 Mahabharatamanjari^ Concluding portion, verse no. 16.
16 Op. Cit., Vinyasa I, verse no. 3.
19 Tr. by Dr. Suryakanta—Ksemendra Studies, p. 173.
17 RamayajjamanjarT, Balakanda, verse no. 2.
18 Ibid., verse no. 3.
19 Ibid., verse no. 4.
20 Ibid., Upasamhara, verse no. 2.
Chapter Ten
1 Op. Cit., Upasamhara, verse no. 10.
2 Op. Cit., Upasamhara. verse no. 39.
8 Op. Cit., Somendra’s Intro, verse no. 5.
4 JA, S. Vm, T. VI, p. 420.
9 Raj. VIU, 783.
« Raj. Vm, 184.
7 Raj. V, 239.
8 Raj. VI, 91.
9 Raj. W, 675.
10 Ksemendra Studies, p. 13.
u Avadanakalpalata, Somendra’s Intro., verse 6 et seq.
12 Ksemendra Studies, p. 13.
78 Ibid.
74 Minor Works, Intro., p. 2.
79 Avadanakalpalata, ed. Vaidya, Vol. I, Intro., p. IX.
Foot-Notes
159
16 Cf. Ksemendra Studies, pp. 13-14.
17 JA, S. VIII, T. VI, pp. 401-402.
18 Avadanakalpalata, Somendra’s Intro., verse no. 15.
i* Ksemendra Studies, p. 14—“Somendra mentions Surya-
Sri as Ksemendra’s scribe.”
20 Op. Cit., Upasamhara. verse no. 4.
21 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, p. 26, fn. 3.
22 “Rajahassakhibhyastac”—Pan. V. 4. 91.
23 Raj. II, 62 ; A History of Kashmir, by P.N.K. Bamzai,
p. 170.
24 Nitikalpataru, ed. Mahajan, Intro., p. ii.
25 Raj. IV, 711, 716.
28 Raj. VIII, 1079.
27 Kavikanthabharana, Sandhi V—See : Minor Works,
pp. 82-83.
28 Raj. VII, 581, 1054.
28 Ksemendra Studies, p. 14.
30 Op. Cit., Sandhi V.
31 Cf. Raj. VIII, 911, 1286, 1483, 1484, 1567, 1599.
1628, 1647 1657, 1658, 1663, 1681, 1683, 1684,
1694, 1695, 1701, 1702, 1731, 1840, 1887,1901-1904,
1981, and 1999.
32 Cf. Pandeya Ramtej Shastri’s Hindi tr. of Raj. lv >
513 ; Vm, 1731.
33 Cf. Stein’s tr. of Raj. See also—Kane : Hist, of Dh.
Sas Vol III, p- 981 ; Beniprasad: The State in
Ancient India, p. 44; Altekar: State and Government
in Ancient India, Chap. VIII, etc.
34 Ksemendra Studies, p. 15.
33 For a detailed discussion on the topic, see my article
entitled “Ksattr—A State-Functionary of Ancient India’
published in Our Heritage, 1962, Vol. X, Pt. I; see
also my article “Ksattr—a name of Vidura” published
in the Sanskrit College Magazine, Calcutta, 1962-63.
38 Tait. Br. I. 7, 3, 1.
37 Mait. Sam. TV. 3, 8.
88 Pan. Br. XIX. 1, 4.
160
Ksemendra
39 Mait. Sam. II. 9. 4; Kath. Sam. 17. 13; Tait. Safn IV.
5. 4; Vaj. Sarh. 16. 26.
40 Kat. Sr. Su. (“Savitrah Ksattuh”).
41 Yaska, X. 31.
42 Sat. Br. V. 3, 1, 7.
43 Atharva III. 5, 6-7.
44 Ram. Ayodhya. 79.1 (Comm.) ; Dighanikaya, Maha-
govinda Suttanta ; Pan. III. 2.95 ; Hindu Polity, by K. P.
Jayaswal, pp. 196-197; India as known to Panini, by
V. S. Agrawala, p. 400.
45 A History of Hindu Public Life, by U. N. Ghoshal, Pt.
I, p. 41.
46 Ibid., p. 109 ; Vedic Index of Names and Subjects, by
A. A. Macdonell and A. B. Keith, Vol. I, p. 201 ;
Vaidika-Padanukrama-Kosa, by Visvabandhu.
47 Cf. Manu X. 16; Yajiia. I. 94.
48 Op. Cit., IX. 6.43 ; Ibid., X. 39.12.
49 Cf. Amarakosa, Anekarthasamgraha, Abhidhanacintamani,
Anekarthakosa, Vaijayanti, etc.
50 Visvakosa, Vacaspatya, Sabdasara. Roth and Bohtling,
Monier Williams, V. S. Apte. etc.
Chapter Eleven
1 Mentioned by Kalhana in Raj. I. 13. The editio princeps
of Raj. was published in 1835 by the Asiatic Society
of Bengal, Calcutta.
2 Catalogued by Weber, vide Berlin Cat.
Cf. IA, Vol. I, 1872, p. 307 fn.
3 Mentioned in the Oxford Cat. Cf. ZDMG, 27, Leipzig,
1873—“Uber die Paddhati von Carngadhara” by Weber,
p. 19.
4 Mentioned in the Oxford Cat.
5 Attributed to Ksemendra bv Burnouf.
Cf. Historie du Buddhisme, sec. VI.
Foot-Notes
161
6 Ed. Peterson, BSS, 1888.
Cf. ZDMG, 25, 1871 ; Ibid., 27, 1873.
7 See JA, S. VIII, T. VI, 1885, p. 398.
8 Cf. Ibid. ; ZDMG, 27, 1873, p. 19.
8 Kashmir. Report, p. 45 ; IA, Vol. I, 1872, p. 307 ;
JA, S. VIII, T. VI, 1885, p. 398.
10 IA, Vol. I, 1872, p. 304 fn.
11 Kashmir Report, p. 45.
12 Ibid. ; Notices of Skt. Mss., Vol. I, p. 44, Ms. No.
LXXX ; ZDMG, 27, 1873, p. 19 ; JA, S. VIII, T. VI,
1885, p. 398.
13 Kashmir Report, p. 45.
• 14 Ibid.
18 Buhler’s Report.
16 Kashmir Report, App. I, p. x, Ms. No. 154.
17 Ibid., App. I. p. xxiii. Mss. Nos. 347 and 348.
18 Ibid., App. III. p. clxx, Ms. No. 824.
18 Ibid., App. I, p. xii, Mss. No.s. 182 and 183.
20 Ibid., App. I. p. ix. Mss. Nos. 132 and 133.
21 Ibid., App. I, p. xiii, Ms. No. 201.
22 Ibid.! App. II (Extracts), p. Ixv, Ms. No. 154.
23 Ibid., App. I, p. xviii, Ms. No. 270.
24 Ibid., App. I, p. xxiii, Ms. No. 351.
25 Ibid., App. I, p. xxii, Mss. Nos. 339 and 340.
26 Cf. Dr. Buhler’s statement in his Kashmir Report, p. 48—
“The work (i.e., the Nrpavall) exists now in Kashmir.
But the hope that it would soon come into my hands,
which I expressed in my preliminary Report, has hitherto
not been fulfilled. I do not, however, yet despair of
ultimately obtaining it.”
27 Cf. Dr. Stein’s statement in his Raj., Intro., p. 25 fn.—
“I have spared no efforts in the endeavour to bring
to light a copy of Ksemendra’s Nrpavali from Kasmirian
libraries. Like Prof. Buhler I had long hoped that the
work might yet be recovered from some 'garta'. Re¬
peated offers of substantial rewards have, however, failed
11
162
Ksemendra
to draw it forth. I fear therefore that the statement
made to Prof. Buhler as to the existence of the work in
Kasmir was only an ignis fatuus.
^ 28 Kashmir Report, App. II (Extracts) : (a) Dasavatara
-carita, Ms. No. 33, pp. lxi-lxiii; (b) Bharatamanjari
(with only one verse of the Vyasastaka), Ms. No. 154,
pp. lxiv-lxv; (c) Ramayanakathasara, Mss. Nos. 182
and 183, pp. lxxii-lxxxiii; (d) Samayantatrka, Ms. No.
201, pp. cxxi-cxxii; (e) Nitikalpataru, Ms. No. 351,
p. cxli.
2 » Cf. JA, S. VIII, T. VI, 1885, p. 399, fn. 1 ; ibid., S.
VIII, T. VII, 1886, p. 190.
30 Ibid., S. VIII, T. VI, 1885, p. 399.
As regards the Carucarya, it may be mentioned that
we find two copies of the work included in Buhler’s list
of Mss. purchased in 1875-76. In the Cat. Cat. (c. 1891),
Aufrecht refers this work to Buhler’s Kashmir Report
and also to Rajendralal Mitra’s Notices of Skt. Mss.
(1871-90), but not to Peterson’s Report. As regards
the Caturvargasamgraha, however, we have in the Cat.
Cat. a reference to Peters. I.
31 Avadanakalpalata, ed. S. C. Djs, Bib. Ind., 1888, Vol. I,
Prefatory Note.
32 Ibid.; also Avadanakalpalata, ed. Vaidya, Mithila Inst.,
Vol. I, Intro.; Ksemendra Studies, pp. 19-20.
33 Cecil Bendall, Cat. of Buddhist Skt. Mss. in the University
Library, Cambridge, 1883 ; Cf. JA, S. VIII, T. VI,
1885, p. 399.
34 In his review of Peterson’s First Report (August 1882
—March 1883), Buhler in IA, January', 1884 pointed
out that Peterson in his list of the then known works of
Ksemendra had omitted a small treatise on rhetoric called
Kavikanthabharana.
33 JBRAS^ Vol. XVI, 1883-1885, Art. XII by Prof. Peter¬
son, p. 167.
83 Ibid. IA, January, 1884.
37 Cf. JA, S. VIII, T. VI, 1885, p. 399 ; Winternitz, Vol. Ill,
Pt I p. 24 fn. 3 ; Sanskrit Poetics, by De, Vol. I, p. 132.
Foot-Notes
163
38 JBRAS, Vol. XVI, Art. XII, p. 167.
30 IA, January, 1884.
40 JBRAS, Vol. XVI, Art. XII, p. 179.
41 JA, S. VIII, T. VI, 1885, p. 399.
42 Ibid., p. 407.
43 Ibid., pp. 423-450.
44 As Le'vi informs us in 1886, the manuscripts of the
Brhatkathamanjari known till then were five in number,
of which three were discovered in the palace of Tanjore
and classified by Burnell, and the other two acquired
by Buhler and deposited in the library of the Deccan
College at Poona.
The three manuscripts after which Le'vi reconstructed
the text were : (i) a copy of a manuscript of Tanjore
bequeathed by Burnell to the India Office Library, (ii) the
manuscript acquired by Buhler in Gujarat in 1872, and
(iii) the fragmentary manuscript discovered by Buhler
at Broach in 1875. ’ (Cf. JA, S. VIII, T. VI, 1885,
p. 422).
For a study of the manuscripts see JA, S. VIII,
T. VII, 1886, pp. 178-182.
45 JA, S. VIII, T. VI, 1885, pp. 451-479.
48 Op. Cit., Vinyasa III.
47 Cf. Kashmir Report.
48 For Le'vi’s list of Ksemendra’s works, see JA, S. VIII,
T. VI, 1885, p. 399 fn.
40 For Peterson’s list, see JBRAS, Vol. XVI, 1883-1885,
Art. XII, pp. 167 and 179. The article referred to was
read by Peterson at a meeting of the Society held on
the 6th March, 1885. (Cf. Ibid., Abstract of the
Society’s Proceedings, pp. xxiii-xxiv.)
50 Notices of Skt. Mss., 1871-90, Ms. No. 2822.
81 Cat. Cat. (c. 1891).
62 KM, 1, 1886, Durgaprasad and K. P. Parab.
83 KM, 1, 1886,
84 KM, 2, 1886,
85 KM, 2, 1886,
88 KM, 2, 1886,
164
Ksemendra
67 KM, 4, 1887,
58 KM, 5, 1888,
69 KM, 10, 1888,
60 KM, 6, 1890,
61 KM, 26, 1891,
62 KM, 64, 1898, Sivadatta and K. P. Parab.
93 KM, 69, 1901,
64 KM, 83, 1903, Bhavadatta and K. P. Parab.
65 Avadanakalpalata, ed. S. C. Das and H. M. Vidyabhu-
shana, partly revised by D. C. Chatterji, M.A., Reprint
ed.. Prefatory Note.
66 Buddhist Sanskrit Texts Nos. 22 and 23.
67 Op. Cit., Sandhi V.
68 See supra.
69 Desopadesa and Narmamala, ed. Kaul, Preface, pp. 1-2.
70 Lokaprakasa, ed. Zadoo, Foreword, p. 4.
71 Op. Cit., Vol. XVin, 1898, pp. 289-412.
72 Op. Cit., 1877, p. 75.
73 Op. Cit., 1900: Appendices, Note H, 10; Memoir on
the ancient geography of Kashmir, Chap. II, Sec. V,
26, chap. IV, Sec. II, 86.
74 The works are: Aucitvavicaracarca, Kavikanthabharana,
Suvrttatilaka, Caturvargasamgraha, Carucarya, Darpadalana,
Sevyasevakopadesa, Kalavijasa, Desopadesa, Narmamala
and Samayamatrka.
75 Op. Cit., pp. 5-8.
76 Ibid., pp. 419-422.
77 St. Petersberg.
78 Altindische Schelmenbucher, Lotus-Verlag, Leipzig.
79 WZKM. 28, pp. 406-35.
80 ZDMG, 69, pp. 1-51.
81 Cf. Kuttanimatam, ed. Tridivanatha Ray, M. A., LL.B.,
Vasumati-Sahitya-Mandira, Calcutta, 1st ed., 1360 B.S.,
Preface, p. 2.
82 Cf. Ibid.
83 Poona Oriental Series No. 91, Oriental Book Agency,
Poona.
84 Op. Cit., pp. 91-205.
A SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 .
2 .
3.
4.
5.
6 .
7.
8 .
)
Agarwala, V.S.
India as known to Paijini, Lucknow,
1953
Altekar, A.S.
State and Government in Ancient
India
Amarasiriiha
NamalinganuSasana (with comm, of
K§Iraswamin, Bharata, etc.)
Anandagiri
Sankaravijaya, ed. by Jayanarayana
Tarkapancanana, Bib. lnd, Calcutta,
1868
Apie, V.S.
(Sir) Asutosh Silver
Jubilee Volumes,
Vol. Ill, Pt. 2, 1925
Atharva-Sarfihita
The Student’s Sanskrit-English Dic¬
tionary
Aufrecht, T.
Catalogus Catalogorum, Vol. I,
Leipzig, 1891
9.
10 .
11 .
12 .
13.
14.
15.
16.
Ballabhadeva
Bamzai, P.N.K.
Bfuiabhatta
Bandyopadhyaya,
N.C.
Belvalkar, S.K.
Subhasitavall, ed. by P. Peterson and
Durgaprasada, Bombay, 1886
A History of Kashmir, Delhi, 1962
Har§acarita
Development of Hindu Polity and
Political Theories, Part I
Kautilya or An exposition of His
Social and Political Theory
An account of the different existing
systems of Sanskrit Grammar, Poona,
1915
Beniprasad The State in Ancient India
Bhandarkar Cata¬
logue of Skt. Mss.,
Vol. XIII, Pt. I
166
K§emendra
17. Bhandarkar Com¬
memoration Vol.
18. Bharavi Kiratar-
junlya (with Malli-
natha's Comm.)
19. Bhattacarya,
Mahabharatera Samaja, 2nd ed
Sukhamaya
20. Bhau Daji Collection
21. Bhavabhuti Uttara-Ramacarita, ed. by Haridasa
22. Bilhaga
SiddhantavaglSa, Calcutta, 1858 6ak.
Vikramahkadevacarita, ed. by G,
Biihler, BSS, No. XIV, 1875
23. Bruce, C.G.
24. Biihler, G.
Kashmir
Catalogue of Skt Mss contained in
the private libraries of Gujarat,
Kathiavad, Kachchh, Sindh, and
Khandes—compiled under the
superintendence of G. Biihler,
Bombay, 1871
25.
Report of Skt Mss, 1874-75, Gir-
gaum, 1875
26.
Detailed Report of a Tour in search
of Skt Mss made in Kasmir, Raj-
putana, and Central India, JBRAS,
Extra No., Bombay, 1877
27. Bu-ston
History of Buddhism in Tibet (tr. by
E. Obermiller)
'S' 28. Damodaragupta
Kuttanlmata, ed. by Tridivanatha
Ray, VSM, Calcutta, 1360 B.S.
29.
Kuttanlmata, tr. into Hindi by Atri-
deva Vidyalaihkara and Intro, by
Dr. Suryakanta, Varanasi, 1961
30. Dasgupta, S. N.
and De, S. K.
A History of Sanskrit Literature,
Vol. I, Cacutta, 2nd ed., 1962
Bibliography
167
31. Deccan College A Catalogue of Skt Mss in the
Catalogue, 1884
library of the Deccan College (Part I
prepared under the superintendence
of F. Kielhorn, Part II and Index
prepared under the superintendence
of R. G. Bhandarkar)
32. Deccan College
Catalogue, 1888
A Catalogue of the Callections of
Mss deposited in the Deccan College,
Bombay, 1888
33. De, S. K.
Aspects of Sanskrit Literature,
Calcutta, 1959
34. De, S. K.
Studies in History of Sanskrit
Poetics, 1st ed., London, 1923 ; 2nd
and revised ed., Calcutta, 1960
35. Dhananjaya
36. Digha-Nikaya
37. Dikshitar
38. Dowson, J.
DaSarupaka
Purana Index
A Classical Dictionary of Hindu
Mythology and Religion, Geography,
History, and Literature, London,
1879
39. Duff, C. M.
The Chronology of India, West¬
minister, 1899
40. Gajanan Raje,
Biography and History in Sanskrit,
Chandrakant Bombay, 1958
41. Ganhar and Ganhar Buddhism in Kashmir
42. Ghoshal, U. N. A History of Hindu Political Theories
43. Ghoshal, U. N. A History of Hindu Public Life
44. Ghoshal, U. N. A History of Indian Political Ideas
45. Haider, Gurupada Vyakaraija-DarSanera Itihasa
46. Heesterman, J. C. The Ancient Indian Royal Consecra-
47. Hemacandra
48. Hemacandra
tion, The Hague, 1957
Abhidhana-cintamaiji
Anekarthasaifagraha
49. (The) Indian
Antiquary I, XIII
r
168 K§emendra
50. Indian Historical
Quarterly 1935-38
51. Indische Studien
XIV
52. Iyenger, V. Gopala A Concise History of Classical
53.
Jalhaija
Sanskrit Literature, Tanjore, 1959
Suktimuktavali, ed. by E. Krishi>a-
54.
Jayaswal, K. P.
macharya, GAS 82, Baroda, 1938
Hindu Polity, Bangalore, 1955
55.
Journal Asiatique,
S. VIII, T. VI, 1885 and T. VII,
Paris,
1886
56.
Kalhaija
Rajatarangii}!, ed. and tr. by M. A.
57.
Kalhaija
Stein, Vols I & II, Delhi, 1961
Rajatarangii)!, ed. and tr. by Paijdeya
58.
Kalhai>a
Ramtej Shastrl, Kashi, 1960
Rajatarangii)!, NSP
59.
Kane, P. V.
History of Sanskrit Poetics, 3rd
60.
Kane, P. V.
revised ed., Delhi, 1961
History of Dharma-Sastra, Vol. Ill
61.
Kathaka-Samhita
62.
Katyayana-Srauta-
63.
Sutra
Kaumudi
Kashmir
64.
Kautilya
ArthaSastra
65.
Kavyamala Series
Gucchakas IX, XIII
66.
Keith, A. B.
A History of Sanskrit Literature
67.
Keith, A. B.
Classical Sanskrit Literature
68.
Kielhorn, F.
A Catalogue of Skt Mss existing in
69.
Kielhorn, F.
the Central Provinces, Nagpur, 1974
List of the Skt Mss purchased for
70.
Krishna Caitanya
Govt during 1877-78 and 1869-78
and from May to Nov. 1881. Poona,
1881
A New History of Ssnskrit Litera¬
71.
Krishnamachariar,
ture, Bombay, 1962
History of classical Sanskrit Litera¬
M.
ture, Poona, 1937
Bibliography
169
Sivasutravimar£inl, ed. by J. C.
Chatterji, Kashmir Series 1, 1911
Pratyabhijnahrdayam, ed. by J. C.
Chatterji, Kashmir Series III,
1911
Spandasandoha, ed. by MM. Pt.
M. R. Shastri, Kashmir Series XVI,
1917
Spandanirijaya, ed. by Pt. M. S.
Kaul Shastri, Kashmir Series XLII,
1925
Kalavilasa, KM I, NSP, 1886
Aucityavicaracarca, KM I, NSP, 1886
Suvrttatilaka, KM2, NSP, 1886
SevyasevakopadeSa, KM2, NSP, 1886
Carucarya, KM 2, NSP, 1886
Kavikaijthabharaija, KM4, NSP, 3rd
ed. 1937
Samayamatrka, KM 10, NSP, 1888
DaSavataracarita, KM 26, NSP, 1891
Bharatamanjarl, KM 64, NSP, 1898
Ramayaijamanjarl, KM 83, NSP,
1903
DeSopadeSa and Narmamala, ed.
by Pt. Madhusuudan Kaul Shastri,
Kashmir Series 40, 1923
LokaprakaSa, ed. by Pt. J. Zadoo
Shastri, Kashmir Series 75, 1947
Avadanakalpalata, ed. by S. C. Das
and H.M. Vidyabhushai>a, Reprint,
partly revised by D. C. Chatterji,
Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1940
Avadanakalpalata, Vols I & II, ed.
by Dr. P. L. Vaidya, Mithila Insti¬
tute, 1959
Nltikalpataru, ed. by Dr. V. P.
Mahajan, BORI, 1956
170
K$emendra
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100 .
101 .
102 .
103.
104.
105.
106.
f ; Minor Works of K$emendra, ed. by
E. V. V. Raghavacharya and D. G.
Paijdhye ( General Editor, Dr.
Aryendra Sharma ), The Sanskrit
Academy Series No. 7, Osmania
University, Hyderabad, 1961
Kunhan Raja, C. New Catalogus Catalogorum, Madras
University Sanskrit Series 18, 1949
M Survey of Sanskrit Literature,
Bombay, 1962
Law, B. C. Some K$atriya Tribes of Ancient
India, Calcutta, 1924
Macdonell, A. A.
Macdonell, A. A.
and Keith, A. B.
Mahabharata, with
Nilakanthi, Vaiiga-
vasl ed.
MaitrayanI Saihhita
Majumdar, R. C.
(General ed.)
99
Malalasekhara,
G. P.
Manorama,
Manusariihita,
History of Sanskrit Literature
Vedic Index of Names and Subjects,
Vol. I, 1958
The History and Culture of the
Indian People, Vol. II—The Age of
Imperial Unity, 1953
Do, Vol. V—The Struggle for
Empire, 1957
Dictionary of Pali Proper Names,
Vols. I & II, London, 1937
Monthly journal in Sanskrit ed. by
Ananta Tripath! Sarma, M.A.,
P. O. L., M. P., 6iromapi Press,
Berhampur, Ganjam, Vol. IV, Pt, II,
Isravatja, 1885 Ssak.
with Comm, of Medhatithi and
Kullukabhatta
Matsya-Puraija
Medinikara AnekarthaSabdako$a
MiSra, Acarya Sri- Sariiskrta-sahityetihasah, Varanasi,
Ramacandra 1960
Bibliography
171
107. Mitra, Rajendralal Notices of Skt Mss (1871-90)
108. Mookerji, R. K. Chandragupta Maurya And His
109. Nllamatapuraija,
Times, Madras, 1943
ed. by R. Kanjilal and J. Zadoo,
Lahore. 1924
110. Our Heritage,
Sanskrit College Research Journal,
Vol. X, Pt. I, Calcutta, 1962
111. PaficavlihSa
Brahmapa
112. Paijdey, K. C.
Abhinavagupta : An Historical and
Philosophical Study, Benares, 1935
113. Papini
114. Peterson, P.
Astadhyayl
Report of operations in search of
Skt Mss in the Bombay Circle,
August 1882—March 1883, JBRAS,
115.
Vol. 16, Extra Number
Report of operations etc., April
1883—March 1884, JBRAS, Vol. 17,
116.
Extra Number
Report of operations elc., April
1884—March 1886, JBRAS, Vol. 18,
117. Peterson, P.
Extra Number
Report of operations etc., April
1886—March 1892, JBRAS, Extra
118.
Number, Bombay, 1894
Report of operations etc., April
1892—March 1895, JBRAS, Bombay
1896
119. Radhakanta Deva 6abdakalpadruma
(Patron)
120. Raghavan, V.
Presidential Address at A.I.O. Conf.,
21st Session, 1961
121. RajaSekhara
Karpuramanjar], ed. by Dr. Mano-
mohan Ghosh, Calcutta, 1939
122. Ramayaija
172
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
Ksemendra
Ray, H. C. The Dynastic History of Northern
India, Calcutta, 1931
Ray, S. C. Early History and Culture of
Kashmir, Calcutta, 1957
Roth and Bohtling Sanskrit Worterbuch, St. Petersberg
Sanskrit College
Magazine, Calcutta,
1962-63
Sarngadhara Sarhgadhara-Paddhati, ed. by P.
Peterson, BSS, 1888
Satapatha Brahmapa
Somadeva Kathasaritsagara, Eng. Tr. by C. H.
Tawney, ed. by N. M. Penzer,
London,1924
Kathasaritsagara, NSP, 4th ed., 1930
Sorensen, S.
An Index to the Names in the
Mahabharata with a Concordance,
London, 1923
Srldharadasa
Saduktikanjamrta, POS 15, 1933
Srlmad-Bhagavata
(with eight Commentaries)
Suryakanta
Ksemendra Studies, Poona Oriental
Series 91, Poona, 1954
Taittirlya-Samhita
Taranatha Tarka-
vacaspati
Triennial Cat. of
Skt Mss in Oriental
Library, Madras,
I-VII
Vacaspatya
Vajasaneyi-Sariihita
Varadachari, V
A History of Sanskrit Literature, 2nd
revised ed., 1960
Vasu, Nagendra-
natha
Visva-Ko$a, Calcutta, 1893
Vidyakara
Subha§itaratnako$a, ed. by D. D.
Kosambi and V. V. Gokhale,
HOS 24, 1957
Bibliography
173
142. ViSvabandhu Vaidika-Padanukramako§a
143. ViSvanatha Sahitya-Darpaija, ed. by Dr. P“. V,
Kane (with an Intro.), Bombay, 1923
144. Weber, A.
145. Williams, Monier
146. Wilson, H. H.
147.
148. Wintermtz, M.
149. WZKM, 28
The History of Indian Literature
The Sanskrit-English Dictionary
Essays and Lectures chiefly on the
Religion of the Hindus, Vol. I (A
Sketch of the Religious Sects of the
Hindus)
The Hindu History of Kashmir (with
a Note on Kalhaip’s Rajatarangii;!
by R. C. Dutt)
History of Indian Literature, Vol. Ill,
Pt. I, Tr. by Subhadra Jha, 1st ed.,
Delhi, 1963
150. Yadava Vaijayant!
151. Yajnavalkya-Sariihita
152. Yaska
153. ZDMG,
Nirukta
Band 25, 27, Leipzig
ABBREVIATIONS
Abhinava.
See Bib. s. no. 112
A. I. O. Conf.
All-India Oriental Conference
Amara
NamalinganuSasana of Amarasiihha
App.
Appendix
Atharva.
Atharva-Saihhita
Bib.
A Select Bibliography (Supra, pp. 165-173)
Bib. Ind.
Bibliotheca Indica Series
BORI
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
BSS
Bombay Sanskrit Series
Biihler’s Cat
See Bib. s. no 24
Buhler’s Report
See Bib. s. no. 25
Cat.
Catalogue
Cat. Cat.
See Bib. s. no. 8
Comm.
Commentary, Commentaries
Deccan Cat.
See Bib. s. no. 31, 32
ed.
edited, edition, editor
fn.
foot-note
GOS
Gaekwad Oriental Series
Hist, of Cl. Skt. Lit.
History of Classical Sanskrit Literature
Hist, of Dh. Sas.
History of Dharma£astra
Hist, of Ind. Lit.
History of Indian Literature
HOS
Harvard Oriental Series
IA
The Indian Antiquary
IHQ
Indian Historical Quarterly
Ind. Stud.
Indische Studien
Intro.
Introduction, Introductory
JA
Journal Asiatique
JBRAS
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of
Great Britain and Ireland, Bombay
Branch
Kashmir Report
See Bib. s. no. 26
Kashmir Series
The Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies,
Research Department, Jammu and
Kashmir State
i
176
K$emendra
Katha
Kath. Sam.
Ka{. Sr. Su
Kielhorn’s Cat.
Kielhorn s List
KM
Krishna.
Mait. Sam.
Minor Works
Mithila Inst.
Ms.
Mss
New Cat.
Notices of Skt Mss
Paij.
Pan. Br.
Peters I
Peters II
Peters III
Peters IV
Peters V
POS
Raj.
Ram.
Religion of the
Hindus
Rep.
S.
s.
Sanskrit Poetics
(by Dr. De)
Sat. Br.
Skt.
Skt. Acad.
Kathasaritsagara of Somadeva
Kathaka-Saiiihita
Katyayana-Srauta-Sutra
See Bib. s. no. 68
See Bib. s. no. 69
Kavyamala Series
See Bib. s. no. 71
Maitrayai}! Saihhita
Minor Works of K§emendra, See Bib.
s. no. 91
The Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate
Studies and Resei rch in Sanskrit Learn¬
ing, Darbhanga
Manuscript
Manuscripts
See Bib. s. no. 92
See Bib. s. no. 107
A§tadhyayl of Pacini
PancaviiiiSa Brahmaija
See Bib. s. no. 114
See Bib. s. no. 115
See Bib. s. no. 116
See Bib. s. no. 117
See Bib. s. no. 118
Punjab Oriental Series
Rajatarahgii}! of Kalhaija
Ramayar/a
See Bib. s. no. 146
Report
S6rie
serial
See Bib. s. no. 34
Satapatha Brahmaiia
Sanskrit
The Sanskrit Academy Saries, Osmania
University, Hyderabad
Abbreviations
177
Subh.
T.
Tait. Br.
Tait. Sam.
Tr., tr.
Vaj. Saiii
Vikram.
VSM
Winternitz.
W Z K M
Subha§itavall of Vallabhadeva
Tome
Taittirlya Brahmaija
Taittirlya-Saiiihita
Translated, Translation
V ajasaneyi-Saiiihita
Vikramahkadevacarita of Bilhaija
Vasumatl-Sahitya-Mandira
See Bib. s. no. 148
Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des
Morgenlandes
Yajna.
Yaska
Z D M G
Y aj navalkya-Saihhita
Nirukta of Yaska
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlan-
dischen Gesellschaft
12
/
INDEX OF NAMES
[This Index covers pages 1 to 120.
The name ‘K§emendra’ is not included in the Index]
A
Abhimanyu 54
Abhinavabharati 37
Abhinavagupta (Abhinava) 1,
6, 11, 13-20, 32-42, 44-46,
82-84, 88-90, 94, 95, 102
Acalamangala 73
Ahmedabad 116
Amrtatarahga 116
Ananta 1,8, 12, 34, 43, 44, 67‘
70-75, 77-79
Anubhutisvarupa 11
A$oka 64
Atrigupta 16
Aucityavicaracarca 5, 10, 24,
25, 50, 57, 62, 63, 67,
70-72, 77, 79. 85, 86, 95, 97,
108, 109, 116, 117, 120
Aufrecht, T. 10, 30, 85, 89,
90, 117
Avadanakalpalata 3, 24, 32,
50, 51, 53, 57, 60, 64, 65,
70-72, 7 /, 79, 85, 86, 95, 97,
108, 109, 116, 117, 120
Avaloka 33
Avasarasara 116
B
Baijabhatta 85, 98, 99
Bappiya 50
Benares 22
Bendall, Cecil 116
BhadreSvara 67
Bhagavata 111
Bhaktibhava 109
Bharatamanjarl 2, 7, 22, 24,
28, 29, 35, 45, 48, 50, 53, 57,
58, 82, 83, 88, 98, 99, 103,
114, 117, 119
Bhatta Bapa see Barjabhafta
Bhatta Bhallaja 85
Bhatta Lattana 85
Bhatta Narayaija 85
Bhatta Prabhakara 85
Bhatta Sahaja 119
Bhatta Tauta 85
Bhatfenduraja 85
Bhavabhuti 66, 85
Bhik§acara 109, 110
Bhogasena 52
Bhoglndra 16, 50-52, 56, 57,
106
Bhoja 80
Bhudhara 10
Bilhaija 7, 48, 74-76, 78-80
Bodhisattva 59
Brhatkatha 2, 35, 40, 42, 44,
45, 80
Brhatkathamanjari 22, 24, 33,
50, 57, 83, 84, 88, 91, 92, 103,
114, 117-119
Buddha 3, 60, 65, 104, 105
180
Ksemendra
Buddhasvamin 3, 4
Biihler, G. 11-13, 21-23, 28,
30, 33, 34, 43, 52, 54, 84, 88,
90, 113-117, 119
Burnell, A. C. 33, 113
C
Cakrapala (Cakra) 61-63
Cankuga 67
Carucarya (CarucaryaSataka)
17,24, 25, 30, 42, 57, 68, 114,
115, 117
Caturvargasariigraha 24, 115,
117, 118
Citrabharata 116
D
Damodaragupta 87
Danaparijata 117
Darpadalana 5, 24, 116, 117,
120
DaSavataracarita 4, 15, 22, 24,
25, 31, 41, 42, 48-50, 52, 53,
57, 70, 73, 74, 76, 77, 114,
117, 119
Das, S. C. 34, 64, 65, 69, 115,
118
De, S. K. 13, 16, 23, 24, 30,
71
DeiopadeSa 5. 24, 116, 118
Devadhara 69, 91, 92, 94, 95
DevaSarman 50
DhaneSvara 11
Dhanika 33
Dhara 80
Dhuijdhiraja 33
pidda 54) 7 i
Duff, C.M. 30
E
Ekairnga 11
G
Gangaka 1, 85-88, 93, 95, 102
Gauraka 67
Ghosh, Manomohan 66
Ghoshal, U.N. 111
Gokula 29
Gopalavarman 104
Guijadhya 2, 91, 103
Gujarat 33, 113
Gurjara 10
H
Haladhara 67, 74
Haribhadra 11
Hariraja 71
Har§a 8, 12, 67, 75, 79
HastijanaprakaSa 10
Hirszbant, B.A. 120
Hitahita 8
1
Ik§vaku 69
J
Jalhaija 80
Jataka 3
Jayadatta 50
Jayaplda 50, 51
Jayasiriiha 50, 110
Jha, S. 84
K
KalaSa ( KalaSaka) 1, 43, 49,
70, 71, 74-80, 104
Kalavilasa 5, 10, 22-24, 114,
117, 120
Index
181
Kalhapa 7, 32, 48-51,54-56, 70,
74, 79, 80, 93, 111, 115
Kalyaija 79
KanakajanakI 116
Kandarpasirfiha 8
Kane, P.V. 24, 38, 39, 44, 45,
63, 84, 85, 88, 90
Kashmir 1, 7, 8, 19, 22, 34,
46-48, 50, 53-55, 64, 66, 71,
73-79, 81, 91, 93, 109-112,
114, 119
Kathasaritsagara 10, 74, 75,
80, 111, 112
Kaul, M.S. 28, 34-37, 39, 40,
42-44, 46, 49, 51, 52, 58, 63,
78, 85, 88-90, 96, 108, 118
Kavikanthabharaga 5, 7, 24,
50, 61-63, 67, 70-72, 96, 97,
109, 115-118, 120
Kavyakautukavivaraga 37
Krishijamachariar, M. 11, 30,
78, 85, 88, 90
Krishijamacharya, E. 30, 89, 90
Kr§i}a$rama 11
K§ema 8, 67
K§ema 8
K§emadeva 8
K§emagaurl£vara 8
K§emagupta 8
K§emahaiiisagaiji 9
K§emajaya 9
K§emakara 9 X
Ksemakar^a 9
K§emamatha 8
K§emananda 8, 9
K§emankara 7
K$emaraja 8, 11-20, 82, 84
K$emata 8
K§emavadana 8
K§emendrabhadra 9
Ksemendrakhaijdana 11
K§emendrapraka$a 113
K$emendra Suri 11
K$eml$vara 9
K§itipati 80
Kunhan Raja, C. 20
Kuttanlmata 87
Kuyya 56, 57
L
Lak§maka 1G9, 110, 112
Laksmagaditya 68, 109, 110,
112
Lalita 109
Lalitaditya Muktaplda 50, 67
Lalitaratnamala 116
Lavanyavatl 116
L6vi, S. 2', 26, 34, 43, 45, 50,
52, 54, 61, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90,
91, 103, 107, 116, 117
Lhasa 115
Lipiviveka 9, 65
Locana 19, 37
Lohara 80
Lokapraka$a 22-24, 27, 67,
115, 118
M
Macdonell, A.A. 30
Madanamahargava 9
Magadha 9
Mahabharata 2, 98, 99, 111
Mahabharatamanjarl See
Bharatamanjarl
Mahajan, V. P. 25, 28, 30, 34,
36, 39, 40, 44, 51, 52, 63, 119
182
Ksemendra
Malliatha 33
Mammala 7, 33
Manu 65, 66, 85, 86
Matanga 55, 56
Matrkaviveka 10, 65
Max Miiller, F. 12
Medhatithi 65
Meyer, J.J. 120
Mitra, Rajendralal 22, 114, 117
Mudrarak$asa 33
Muktakai>a 61, 63
Muktavll 116
Munimatamimamsa 116
Munja 33
N
Nakka 104, 107
Narasirfihagupta 16
Narendra 19. 50, 51, 56, 65-67
106
Narmamala 5, 24, 46, 70, 72,
118
Nllamata 49, 65
Nitikalpataru 22, 24-26, 30
115, 119
Nltilata 116
Nrpavali 115
0
Okkaka 69
P
Padyakadambarl 116
Pai>dey, K. C. 13, 14,16,38,
48, 53, 54, 63, 82
PavanapancaSika 117
Penzer, N. M. 75
Peterson, P. 10, 12, 13, 17, 19,
20, 31, 34, 43, 84,85, 115-117
Prabhakaradeva 104
PrakaSendra 1, 14, 17, 50, 54,
56-59, 61, 68, 106
Pratyabhijnahrdaya 12
Pratyabhijnavimar£ini 35-38
Pravarapura 8
R
Radda 50
Rajanagara 10
Raja^ekhara 68
Rajatarangii)! 50, 52, 54, 55,
57, 70, 73-75, 72, 87, 93, 104,
109-112, 119
Rajendra (Surii 116
Rama 104
Ramayai)a 2
Ramayaijamanjari 2, 22-24,
28, 50, 52, 53, 57, 101, 114,
117, 119
Ramayasas 69, 103, 104, 106,
107
Ratnakara 29, 31
Ratnasiiiiha 67, 108, 109
Rgveda 111
Rucikara 13, 19
Rudrapala 73
Ruyyaka 7
S
Sajjanananda 104-107
Sakya 64, 65, 69
Samayamatrka 5, 22, 24, 70-72,
117, 118, 120
SambapancaSikavivaraija 12,
13
Sariigramaraja 8, 55, 67, 71,
74, 87
Index
183 -
Sankara 27
Sankaralala 10
Safikaravijay 27
Sarasvataprakriya 11
Sarngadharapaddhati 33, 80,
113
Schmidt, R. 120
Schonberg, J. 116
SevyasevakopadeSa 24, 117
Sharma, A. 34, 43, 53, 68, 78,
85, 88, 90, 93, 94, 105, 119
Sindhu 14, 50, 52-57, 59
Sivabhaktadasa 29
Sivadasa 50
SivasutravimarSinl 12
Soma (Somacarya, Somadeva)
1, 3, 10, 18, 45, 74-76, 79, 80,
87-91, 94, 95, 102
Somendra 29, 32, 50-57, 59-61,
69, 74, 78, 87, 92-94, 103-
105, 107
Spandanirpaya 11-13
Spandasandoha 11-13, 84
Stavacintamaiji 15
Stein, M.A. 115, 119
Subha$itavali 10, 31, 80, 117
Sukradanta 50
Suktimuktavali 30, 80
Sunna 67
Suryakanta 6, 10, 13, 14, 16,
28, 29, 34, 36, 38-40, 42,
43,45,51,52,54-56, 61, 62,
70, 78, 85-88, 90, 91, 93, 96,
104, 106-110, 112, 114, 120
Suryamatl 54, 79. 80
SuryaSrI 107, 208
Sussala 8, 110
» 7
Suvrttatilaka 5, 22, 24, 57, 62,.
70-72, 76, 77, 79, 97, 115,.
117, 118, 120
T
Tanjore 33, 113
Tantraloka 14, 17
Taranatha 9
Tawney, C. H. 75
Thakkiya 50
Tilakasiihha 104
Tribhuvanamalla 79
TripureSa 15,48, 49
Tunga 8
U
Uccala 52
Udayasiriiha 67, 68, 109
Udbhata 7
Uhle, H. 115
Utpala 36
Utpalaplda 109
V
Vaidya, P. L. 34, 46,51,52,.
84,85, 88,91, 105, 118
Vaikhanasa 26, 27
Vallabhadeva 10, 31, 80, 117
Valmiki 101, 102, 119
Vamana 8, 50
Vamanagupta 14, 16
Vnjraditya see Bappiya
Varahagupta 15, 16,
Varamula 8
Vasu, N. N. 9, 48, 52, 85, 88.
Vatsyayanasutrasara 116
Vetalapancavirii^ati 115
Vidura 111
184
K$emendra
Vijayasimha 104
VijayeSa 15, 67, 108, 109
(VijayeSvara)
Vikramankadevacarita 74-76,
79
Vinayavalll 116
VIryabhadra 92, 93, 105
ViSvako§a 9, 48, 88
Vitasta 47
Vyasa 18, 29, 30, 95, 97-102,
119
Vyasastaka 22, 24, 57, 99,
100, 114, 117
W
Weber, A. 7
Wilkins 4
Wilson, H. H. 26
Wintemitz, M. 38
Y
YaduSarman 10
YaSaskara 104
Z
Zadoo,J. 118, 119
ERRATA
( Pages 1—120 )
Line
For
21, 32
Somapada
32
was due
7
welded
27
ti
30
brati
12
inspite
14-15
K§mcndra
17
supposed
23
part
4
as
27
versality
6
about even
Read
Somadeva
was partly due
wielded
it
brhati
in spite
Ksemendra
generally supposed
a part
an
versatility
even about
£iw
|PH
: . . ' . .
.
H^ B^B88B3^ ^^BMSgk?: : ^tgS?cgj?|^5£H£i»5js£?t
:
• : ‘‘ ; ;’:■“
- - i
..
|BWppgS 2 MB p«ffl M^^ te 5^g^ga
■
Open Library