O
3
>4
D
X
to
^(
<>««»
NJD
LJ-)
?
in :
>
QD
>-
>
:t^
TIIK
;\r(^HrrYALAMKAriA OF KSHEMENDHA,
WITH A NOTE ON THE
DATE OF PATANJALI,
AND
AN INSCIUPTION FROM KOTAH ;
Two Papers read before the Bombay Branch of the
Royal Asiatic Society:
WITH A PREFACE IN REPLY TO PROFESSOR BHANDARKAR.
BY
PETER PETERSON,
1 I'illNSTONE riiOFESfcJOE OF SANSKRIT_, BOMBAY
5l5ombaj) :
PRINTED AT THE
EDUCATION SOCIETY'S PRESS, BYCULLA.
1885.
l-rlca L'
THE
AUCIIITYALAMKARA OF KSHEMENDM,
WITH A NOTE ON THE
DATE OF PATANJALI,
AND
AN INSCRIPTION PROM KOTAH;
Two Papers read before the Bombay Branch of the
Royal Asiatic Society;
WITH A PREFACE IN REPLY TO PROFESSOR BHANDARKAR.
BY
PETER PETERSON,
n
ELPHINSTONE PEOPESSOR OP SANSKRIT, BOMBAY.
PRINTED AT THE
EDUCATION SOCIETY'S PRESS, BYCULLA.
1885.
Frice Re,
CARPENTIER
/^v: :/'>:- '•;
^
PREFATORY.
The first of the two papers that follow contains a short account
of a small treatise on rhetoric by the Kashmirian poet, Kshe-
mendra, called the Auchityavicharacharcha. ^ . In examining
that book I was extremely interested to find that Kshemendra
quotes in its entirety a verse, the last pada of which is quoted
in Patanjali's Mahabhashya, and that ho gives the name of
the author of the verse as one Kumaradasa. This is the
name of one of the authors quoted in the Anthologies of
Vallabhadeva and Sarngadhara : and I set out the verses
known from these sources to be by this poet in support of the
contention that a writer who quotes Kumaradasa cannot have
lived in the second century before Christ. Mr. K. T. Telang,
in the course of some remarks on my paper, referred to this
part of it as, in the light of accepted facts, pointing rather to
the conclusion that Kumaradasa must be put prior to the
accepted date for the author of the Mahabhashya than to the
conclusion I had suggested. It was in response to this challenge
that I drew up the Note on the Date of Patau jali which is
appended to this paper. I am induced to publish the paper
in its present form chiefly from a desire to animadvert here
1 This is Kshemeadra's own name for the book. Auchityalamkara, the
name by which it is referred to in my paper, probably came into use as a
convenient short title.
M152333
4 PREFATORY,
very briefly on the reply^ from Dr. Bhandarkar which that
Note has elicited.
The Note was negative in its character, and its main conten-
tion is not I think misrepresented if I describe it as an
attempt to show that there is nothing on the record inconsistent
with some considerably later date for Patanjali than the second
century before Christ.
Goldstiicker, I knew, had maintained that two passages in
the Mahabhashya taken together proved that Patanjali lived
after the overthrow of the Maurya Dynasty in the third century
B.C., and at the time of certain events to which he himself
refers as events of contemporary history, and which, according
to Goldstiicker, must be taken to have ocsurred in the middle
of the second century before Christ. If Groldstiicker's conten-
tion were correct, there was of course an end at once of mine :
and my first care was to examine again independently the pas-
sages he relies on. It will be seen that I claim to show that
Goldstiicker misunderstood the grammatical import of the
passage in which the supposed reference to the Maurya Dynasty
occurs, and that I contend that, with his wrong translation
disappears all reason for seeing in the passage any reference
to a dynasty at all. Dr. Bhandarkar admits the first of these
conclusions, but dissents from the second. He holds that the
grounds for taking Maurya as the name of a dynasty that was
extinct in Patanjali's time still remain. "The contrast be-
tween a royal dynasty and common people [which was Gold-
stiicker's ground] is not that ground : but there is another
ground which Professor Peterson has lost sight of, and which
consequently has been neglected in his translation.*'
Bhandarkar proceeds to give my translation, and to show
• The Date of Patanjali. A lleply to Professor Peterson ; by Kaiukrisbai^
Gopal Bhandarkar, MA., &c.
PREFATORY.
where it is, as he takes it, incorrect. For convenience of re-
ference I give below tlio passage in dispute,^ my translation,
and Bhandarkar's criticism : and will state here what I have to
urge in reply. This I will do briefly.
3 Mahabliashya on Pari. V. 3, 99. ^^^ f^"^ rftt ^ i%'-¥rr I f^;
" In that case [if ^FF^ is to be part of the rule] the following expression
is not obtained [i.e. must be declared to be bad grammar, while as a matter
of fact it is in common use, and so it is the correctness of the stitra that is in
peril.] ^^^i {^^m: "A Skanda in act to shoot." ** Why ?" " It is for
gain that the Mauryas make images." rTfH" ^ ^q"frX. *' Let it be admitted
that so far to them the rule ^'Tf |5^ should not apply, but that the affix
ka should be used. ^R?^fTT: ^RT^ ^^ff^f: But whatever images among these
even, are from the beginning intended for worship and not for sale, rTPFT
Hf^^^W to them that rule will apply, and the affix ka will be barred."
Professor Peterson rejects the reading f^f : before ^^'^^i why, I do not
understand, unless the reason be that it goes against the translation which he
has worked himself into believing to be coi-rect- ftW^: he translates by
*' in act to shoot" and his authority is a certain explanation of the word with a
second-hand quotation in support from a commentary on the Amarakosa,
contained in the St. Petersburg Lexicon, and copied from that as a matter
of course by Monier Williams. But Bohtlingk and Roth have not found a
single instance of the use of the word in that sense in the whole extent of
the literature which they have examined. Still Professor Peterson thinks
Pataujali has used it in that sense. But after all wljat Bohtlingk and Roth
and Monier Williams say is that R^f^ expresses " an attitude in shoot-
ing" ; and not " one in that attitude" ; so that if the sense is to be admitted
here at all, ^^f f^W^: would mean ** Skanda who is an attitude in shoot-
ing," which of course will not do. Patanjali, however, uses the word as
expressive of a certain god who is always mentioned together with Skanda.
Ilnder Pan. VIIL 1. 15, he gives C't ^^=^ft^r^ along with ^'k ^'rf^f-
K^ as an instance of a copulative compound of the names of things or per-
sons always mentioned together, which admits of the use of the word Dvan-
dva or "pair" instead of Dvau, or "two." It is clear from this that
Pataijjali himself means to speak of them as two individuals always asso-
ciated together, and forming a pair, and the dual also expresses that they
were two.
6 PREFATORY.
And first of my " Skanda in act to shoot." My authority
was not Monier Williams, nor was it the mere explanation
of the word in the St. Petersburg Dictionary. Like other
Now Professor Peterson's translation of 4r%1i."Mll'^ffHT^: ^^["^rfr: is "It
is for gain that the Mauryas make images. " ** Make " is present tense while
the original ^^f^Tcir: is past tense, that being the past passive participle of
the causal of f T. Again q^^f^Trff: means " devised, " *' planned, " " used
as means, *' and not simply " made." A closer translation of f|T^[%^-
than that we have in the expression " for gain" ought to be given, for an im-
portant point is involved in that. Patanjali applies several times the ex-
pression ^Tr^^TT^ flT'^^^ *T^P(T " seek for gold *' to kings, and the presumption
it gives rise to is that here too those to whom he applies it must be kings.
la the last sentence Professor Peterson's translation of the nominative ^rTf:
by "among these'* is wrong. It is only the genitive ^rn"^ri,or the loca-
tive ^tTTSr that can be so translated. Similarly ^RT^ cannot mean ** from
the beginning " as the Professor takes it to mean ; it can only signify "now,"
** in these days," &c.
The sense of the passage is this. Paaini lays down a rule that the ter-
mination ha which is appended to the name of an object to signify some-
thing resembling that object (f%). provided that something is an image
(^rf^fTcTT), is dropped (^^ 3"'t), when the image is used for deriving a liveli-
hood (^ftft^f^) and is not vendible (^TT^^). Now Patanjali raises this
question. The addition of the condition that the image should not be Ten-
dible renders such forms as Sivalj, Skandah, Visakhah, grammatically not
justifiable (fT\t — l^^'^ ffrf.) He must here be taken to mean that these
forms are current, and that the description " not vendible " is not applicable
to them. " Why not " (f*" ^TITT^), he asks. " Because the Mauryas, seek-
ing for gold or money, used images of gods as means" (hTh — ^^l^rff;).
Here the author must be understood to say that the description " not ven-
dible " is not applicable to the images now called Sivah, SUandalj, and Visa-
kah, because such images were sold by the Mauryas. They are therefore
vendible objects, though as a matter of fact they are not for sale, and though
the seUing of such images of gods is discreditable. It is the act of the
Mauryas that has rendered them vendible objects. Hence the termination
cannot be dropped in accordance with the rule, and they should be called
^ivakah, Skandaka^ and Visakhakah, but they are called Sivalj, SkandaJi,
and Visakhah. " It may be ( H^^T ) that the rule about the dropping of ka
is not applicable (^ ^^THT) to them, i.e. to those (fff^) images of gods which
were sold by the Mauryas. But as to these (^?Tr:) [viz. those called by
the names SivaJi, Skandajj, and Visakhah, the correctness of which is in
PREFATORY. 7
students I am under constant obligation to both these diction-
aries. But I endeavour also to use my own judgment : and
if Bhandarkar will turn to the word WnJT in the St. Peters-
burg Dictionary, I think he will agree with me that Bohtlingk
and Roth supply, with their explanation, sufficient evidence
question] which (^fO are at the present day used for worship (^'Rfrf iTSTPTf:)
the rule is applicable to them (rfTg" ^R^^frT)." That is, the termination ka
should be dropped in their case and the forms whose correctness was ques-
tioned are correct.
The forms are correct, because they signify images of gods which are now
worshipped and are not vendible. They were thought to come under the
class of vendible objects because such images were used by the Mauryas for
raising money ; but the vendibility of some does not make those that are
worshipped vendible, and consequently the names of those images do come
under Panini's rule and drop ka. In understanding the passage thus I
have set aside Nagojibhatta's comment which I think can be shown to be
wrong. He appears to me to say that the words Sivah, Skandah, and
Visakhah express images sold by the Mauryas, and as such they are vendible
objects and consequently should have the termination ha, i.e. the forms
should be Sivakah, &c., and not Sivah, &c., as given in the Mahabhashya
which are incorrect, while those, which, in conformity with Panini's stitra
drop ka, are such as express images, intended for that sort of worship which
immediately after their manufacture brings in gains and enables a man to
earn his livelihood. Now this makes no difference as to the province or
operation of Panini's rule; but that the passage itself has been misunder-
stood by Nagojibhatta appears to me clear. He interprets ^^^f^ ^J3fpff:as
" bringing in gains immediately after manufacture," which interpretation is
far-fetched, as are those of all commentators when they do not understand
the point and still wish to explain a passage somehow. He also neglects the
the word ^F:. But the great mistake he makes is his forgetting that
when PataSjali supposes an opponent and makes him raise an objection by
the expression ^ RT-^, " this is not justifiable by that rule," he very
generally makes him object to the rule by bringing forward correct forma
which that rule does not explain. Eventually, he interprets the rule in such
a manner that those forms also are explained by it. In accordance with my
interpretation this is exactly what is done here by Patafijali. If the passage
were put in the form of a dialogue between the Doctor (Siddhantin) and his
opponent (Ptlrvapakshin), it would stand thus : —
Op. Panini inserts the condition that the image should not be vendible.
Then, the forms 6ivah, Skandha, Visakhah are not correct according to his
8 PREFATORY.
that that word is used in the sense I have endeavoured to
fix on M^ii^ here.^ I do not understand the force, in Bhan-
darkar's mouth, of the appeal to the fact that my authorities ^
such as they are, do not recognize a corresponding use of the
adjective nRf'^. They do not. But if k^\T^ ^^J^^ is used of an
attitude in shooting it would not, I think, be easy to show why
f^^lT^ might not be used as an adjective to a word signifying
an image as indicating that attitude. It would have been well
if I had given the precise reference ; but I had these quotations
in view when considering the passage, and I may therefore
fairly, I think, dissent from the remark that my authority is
^' a certain explanation of the word with a second-hand quota-
tion in support from a commentary on the Amarakosa, contained
in the St. Petersburg Lexicon, and copied from that as a matter
of course by Monier Williams." On another small point too here
Bhandarkar does me some wrong. He does not understand
why I reject the reading f%^: before 'E^i^: , "unless the reason
be that it goes against the translation which" I have " worked
myself into believing to be correct.'' It would be a legitimate
retort to say that Bhandarkar reads Chandragupta-sabha,
against Kielhorn, in the note on Panini I, 1, 68, because the
omission of that word might be fatal to the edifice Bhandarkar
rule. [These forms express images of those gods, and should have the
suffix ka."]
Doc. Why?
Op. Because the Mauryas, desirous of raising money, used as means the
images of gods [i.e. they bartered them; and these are such images, and
consequently belong to the class of vendible objects].
Doc. Those images may not come under the rule [because they bartered
them, and consequently they may not drop A;a]. But these [viz., those in
question] , which at the present day are used for worship, come under the
operation of the rule [and consequently the ka is dropped],
* They quote two passages from the Harivansa ^: Tf J^^f ^ l^Tf^^-
(^^ ^^1.6235 ; and W<^ ^^fpr^ff^f^, (said of Baladcvo).
PREFATORY. 9
has raised upon it. But Bhandarkar gives his authority for
the reading he prefers. And so did I. It will be seen that
since writing my paper I have ascertained that the Alwar MS.
of the Mahabhashya also omits %^:. I can add now that,
having been given an opportunity by my friend the Honorable
Rao Saheb Visvanath Narayan Mandlik of consulting the fine
copy of the Bhashya with Kaiyyata's Pradipa in his private
collection, I find that there too the reading is tTM" T ^'n^
f9R*^ l^^r^f^. We have thus the India Office Photozincogra-
phic copy of Kaiyyata, this one of the Rao Saheb's, the Alwar
MS. of the Mahabhashya, and one of Kielhorn's MSS. all
testifying to a reading which is not to be rejected so lightly as
Bhandarkar thinks. And if the reading I prefer turns out
ultimately to be that which the weight of evidence shows to be
correct, Bhandarkar's attempt to refer the following qin":
(nominative plural) to these words will fall to the ground. It
would seem then that my critic is here as much exposed, to
say the least, to the danger of unconscious bias as I can be.
Neither the right reading however, nor the exact interpreta-
tion of the phrase [rR:?] Wt-^ RaiI<^ Xl^ is, as it happens and
as I was careful to point out, material to the first point at issue.
We are agreed here as against Goldstiicker that the phrase con-
tains instances, or an instance, of a form which as denoting an
image is prima facie incorrect under the rule. Let it be
admitted then, for the sake of the argument, that the instance
put forward is not the word skanda, in such a context as shall
show it is the name of an image of the god, and not the god
himself, that is meant, but three names heaped together, which
we are to understand from the general tenor of the whole pas-
sage to be the names of images. The question is as to what
the next words mean, and here I join issue directly with my
critic.
10 PREFATORY.
We are dealing here with images or idols which are profit-
able all of them for a livelihood, but which may or may not be
for sale. This last distinction is a perfectly intelligible one,
and I do not understand why Bhandarkar should insist as he
does, that the vendible character of certain images must be
taken to be due to some mysterious action taken with regard
to them by the Mgurya kings, or what grounds he has for
maintaining that these images and these images alone are
referred to in the words Siva, Skanda, Visakha. Idols have
been sold from the beginning and are sold now : and the
supply will doubtless continue so long as the demand shall
last. Nor is there anything discreditable in the idol-makers'
profession per se. Such names of idols then as Siva, Skanda,
Visakha are for the matter in hand colourless. They do not of
themselves tell us whether the objects of which they are the
names — that is idols in general — are panya or apanya, vendible
or not vendible, much less whether 'such particular idols as
may by a forced construction be supposed to be referred to,
are those the Mauryas dealt in or not. What then is it that
raises the presumption, which it is necessary to notice, that
all idols are in their nature vendible ? The answer to this query
lies in the phrase 'ft^^r'^nfirf^T^: JT^f^rii: Does this mean,
as I take it, " It is for gain that the Mauryas make images,"
or, as Bhandarkar believes, " The Mauryas seeking for gold
or money used images of gods as means."
I will first repudiate the charge that I commit here the
schoolboy error of rendering a word that denotes past time
by a word that denotes present time. There is no restriction
to time present, past or future in my English sentence, any more
than there is in the Sanskrit so-called " past passive participle"
sjf^xf^'ir. The Mauryas, it may be, had made, were then
making, and would continue to make images, but that is not
PREFATORY. 11
Patanj all's assertion here. What he says is that in making
images they do not act from disinterested motives. They
are in search of gain. In view of Dr. Bhandarkar*s misappre-
hension on this point I should prefer now to translate '' images
are made by the Mauryas for gain/' and I am confident that
the so-called past passive participle in Sanskrit is the proper
translation of " made" here, and that the use of the present
would convey an entirely diflfereut meaning. But I do not
repudiate my first translation, which is merely a more idiomatic
rendering of the same thing. I traverse directly Bhandarkar'a
contention that the use of ST^f^q^: throws the whole action, as
far as Patanjali is concerned, into the past. 3|^rf^qiTr: denotes
no more than that the action of making is to be conceived as
completed. It has not that note of time which FJhandarkar
sees in it. But while refusing to admit that the^ action in this
sentence must belong to past time I will not fall into the opposite
error of maintaining that it must be present. Bhandarkar may
be right even if he has not, as I think he has not, any warrant
for being so positive. The speaker may very well be referring
to some notorious action of past time when lust for gain
( ^T^TRnftrfH":) led the *' Mauryas" into paths to them forbidden.
For if the ' 'Mauryas" turned images into a source of profit it
would surely seem to follow that images must be vendible
things. Not being then of the class to whom such manufacture
and sale is not forbidden the '* Mauryas'' may have trafiicked
in idols. Or love of money may have led the "Mauryas" to
commit the heinous sin of selling idols that had once been con-
secrated. Nay the " Mauryas" may have been the then Para-
mount Power, and as such dealt with idols as the English Go-
vernment deals with opium. Any one of these things may be.
None of them, in my view, must be.
For who were these " Mauryas," whose connection with
12 PREFATORY.
images raises a presumption that images as a class, not certain
images as Bhandarkar would understand, are vendible ? The
fact of course is that we do not know. I can only say that the
context appears to me to lend very strong support to Nagoji-
bhatta's assertion that they are idol-makers, and that, whether
that be so or not, I can discover in the same context absolutely
no reason for -taking them to be the Maurya kings, whether of
the third century before Christ or of the sixth century after
Christ. That Patanjali in other places speaks of kings too as
actuated by desire of gain is hardly conclusive.
I admit that M^l'^Mdl: is a difiBcult word. But it is as dif-
ficult for Dr.. Bhandarkar as it is for me. And while I believe
that it can mean ' made' or ' made and sold,' I doubt whether
it can mean 'used as a means to that end, namely making
money,' which appears to be in effect the construction sought
to be put on it.
In my construction of q^TT: I am fully supported by Kaiyyata
and Nagojibhatta, neither of whom refer that word to the be-
ginning of the paragraph.^ I do not think it can, in accordance
^ To make this clear I give E[aiyyata's note and Nagojibhatta^s gloss upon
it:—
Kaiyyata : qif^c^dl ffrf I ^: ^(^^ 'J^I^^HdPrT rTrf^^rqt^; I ^?n=5 f^-
^ mj 5f »T^ I flr^^P^ofhr ff^.— Nagojibhatta : ^jf^ f^%H ^f^-
Rl^rM-U'dtfii^li sr^q^: I f^%5p^ ft^tT^tTWt M^^rcTlTt^ srrq^lVW>J|«*J^.
How Kaiyyata understood the passage is not, to my mind, open to ques-
tion. His short note deals only with the clause Mlt^^dl-, which, according
to Bhandarkar refers to the beginning of the paragraph. And his meaning
is that the case of images made by Mauryas with an eye to gain must be finally
disposed of in re this rule, according as they are either taken from door to
door that service may be held and a ** collection'* made, or sold. I believe
PREFATORY. 13
with the ordinary rules of construction, be referred farther back
than the bt^: of the preceding clause. And I feel sure that it
would have been made to stand before, and not after the
adversativ^ particle 5 if it had the meaning Bhandarkar
now ascribes to it. I will, to lighten the argument, accept Bhan-
darkar's dictum that ^ii^E^^ril: cannot mean ' whichever of these.'
But substitute for f^^: its antecedent ^Wh, and we get the sim-
ple meaning ' whichever images.' As I do not believe that
Patanjali is drawing any distinction between images dealt with
by the Mauryas and any other class of images, the point is not,
in my judgment, a material one.
that Kaiyyata construes qi^?^: as I do, " But whichever being these" that
is " But whichever of these" : and that his nominative to aTH^'Tfr ia mW'" I
can only note here that in the India Office MS. N&gojibhatta seems actually
to read ^ {i.e. the Mauryas) after qX: TlT^^ in Kaiyyata.
The meaning of N&gojibhatta's comment too appears to me to be quite
clear, and to be moreover perfectly relevant to the "province of operation
of P&nini*s rule." " We must," says Nagojibhatta, " understand the word
??Fff9 after m^ic^FTT:. The images referred to are therefore vendible, and the
occasion for the suffix ka presents itself. In the two clauses that follow,
beginning respectively with H^ and ^It^^ill: Patanjali first (H^l «TI1
f ^^) accepts the proposition that the occasion for the suffix has pre-
sented itself, and, secondly (^?T^?Tr= ifsffcf ^nTRif: tTTf Hl^^^) shows how
nevertheless his rule is not of none effect. The phrase ^s^?T 'J^rnfl': in this
clause requires separate explanation : and it is explained as meaning images
destined from the beginning for such lucrative worship as shall yield a liveli-
hood. Lastly, the mention of this second class of images (^: TIT^CnW) sug-
gests a final remark which may be necessary to avoid all misapprehension.
Images are not exhaustively divided into those which are hawked about from
house to bouse that the owner may levy a religious toll, and those which are
sold right ofi'. There are images which are exposed to neither indignity,
but are set up and remain for worship and for worship only. With regard
to these Nagojibhatta holds that the condition precedent of the suffix is
absent. These images are not things made in the likeness of the god.
They are the god himself.
i
14 PREFATORY.
Kaiyyata explains ?ar^ l^rnfT: by mi tR*5"5T ^JTf »T?f^ and
Nagojibhatta's Note is W^ ^HHhmH'^m^^ ^r^^f^^ m ^T
^f^^\m<^^ rlT^:. I follow respectable authority then in taking
^Hlr^ to refer not to the time of speaking " now/' ^' in these
days/* but to the time of manufacture "at the time/' '' from the
beginning/' If the time of speaking is the same as the time
of manufacture the distinction is one without a difference. I
do not dispute however that Nagojibhatta may be wrong, and
that the sense may be ' now/ In that case the meaning will be
that even images which have been objects of barter, if they
have ceased to be such, and are now objects of worship only,
must be held to have acquired the quality of apanyatva.
Bhandarkar has pointed out that he himself published a trans-
lation of this passage in 1873, "in accordance with the native
commentators" when he also stated that Goldstiicker's interpre-
tation was wrong. I greatly regret that Bhandarkar's transla-
tion, although the paper which contains it is among the refer-
ences I gave, escaped my notice at the time I was writing my
paper. I have referred to it now, and am bound to say that
in 1873 Bhandarkar had already silently corrected the worst
of Groldstucker's mistakes. In other respects however Bhandar-
kar's version of 1873 is very defective, a fact which in fairness
should not be lost sight of when comparing my version with
that with which Bhandarkar has now followed it. In 1873
Bhandarkar took Patau jali to mean that Panini's rule is arbitra-
rily set aside in the case of images sold by the Mauryas, so that
forms not valid are nevertheless in use. " What Patanjali
means to say is that the termination ka should be applied
to the names of the images sold by the Mauryas, according to
P^nini's rule; but the rule is set aside in this case, and the
wrong forms Siva, Skanda, and Visakha are used." This is a
capital error, as Bhandarkar now sees. That it is in accordance
PREFATORY. 15
with the native commentators is a view of it due I believe to a
misapprehension of Nagojibhatta's meaning, from which Bhan-
darkar has not yet shaken himself free. I should be more than
human if I refrained from adding that in 1873 Bhandarkar
gave to the phrase rTT^ ^T^^rJ precisely that reference which he
now seeks to give to the admittedly converse phrase «<i<;<:5ai.',
and that ^^'. he naturally then took in the sense he refuses to
admit for it now. '^ It may not be dropped in those cases ( i.e,
the proper forms must be Sivaka &c.) says Patanjali, but it is
dropped in the case of those images which are now used for
worship/' I think it must be admitted that if I have done
nothing else I have at least led Bhandarkar to reconsider his
own view of Patanjali's meaning, and that to some purpose.^
So much for the Maurya passage. Its importance, as I have
pointed out, lies in the fact that what I maintain to be a mere
hypothesis, not proved, if not incapable of proof, with regard
to the persons meant, led Goldstiicker, and has led others, to
look for Patanjali's date soon after the third century before
Christ. With regard to the other passages I do not think that
I can usefully add anything to what will be found in the follow-
ing paper. My own contention was that Patanjali had been
discovered to quote Kumaradasa, that Kumaradasa is the author
of verses of a character precisely similar to verses which we can
assign to dates ranging from 600 to 1000 A.D., and that in
these circumstances it was difficult to believe that Patanjali
really lived in the second century before Christ. These consi-
derations appear to me to be unaffected by Bhandarkar'a ela-
borate hypothesis as to what Patanjali must have meant by the
illustration " Arunad Yavanah Saketam," while as for Pushya-
mitra and Chandraguptalhavepointedout that the existence of
two princes of these names reigning at about the same time
« Bhandarkar's translation of 1873 is in the Indian Antiquary, vol. II., p. 95.
16 PREFATORY.
is better guaranteed for the fourth century after Christ than
for the third before Christ. I am far from saying that Patanjali
must be taken to be referring to my pair of princes. I think
the whole argument a most unsafe one, which aflfords no suffi-
cient warrant to scholars to treat the subject as a closed book.
One more word about Panini. It is not I think the case that
I have anywhere sought to bring Panini down to the sixth
century after Christ. What I have said is, that if Panini wrote
tho verses ascribed to him in the anthologies he certainly did
not live in the sixth century before Christ. The evidence that
he did write those verses appears to me to be accumulating ^
though I have never attempted to say that it is yet sufficient,
as atravff opav Koi ndvT aKovcov navr dvarrTixra-ei )(^p6vos.'^
I cherish the hope that one day I may hold in my hands the
Patlilavijaya, or the Jambavativijaya of the ' Mahakavi ' Panini.
Nor will I much grudge the prize to my friend Bhandarkar • in
view of the eflfect the prasasti may possibly have upon him.
If the book be found, I do not at all anticipate that it will turn out
to be written in an archaic style. ^ What appears to me on a
* This is Aufrecht's quotation when giving (from the Saduktikarn&mritB)
the fine verse attributed there, and in other anthologies, to the Bhashyak^ra ;
• " Should the entire work be discovered and found as a whole to be written
in an archaic style, there will be time enough to consider its claim to be the
work of P&nini ; but at present we must reject that advanced on behalf of
these artificial verses." — Bhandarkar* s paper.
Pischel has recently suggested that the Pat&lavijaya may turn out
to be a grammatical poem of the same kind as the Bhattik&vya. The
suggestion is not in harmony with the verses that have been recovered : and
itself rests on a misapprehension of the reference to the Patalavijaya in Nami's
commentary on Budrata. As the matter is of some importance, and as I my-
self am disposed to attach a special significance to Nami's reference to P&nini,
I will give the passage here from the Bombay Government Palmleaf copy,
(No. 53 of Kielhorn's Coll.) and from the Paper copy secured by me for
PREFATORY. 17
review of thewliole case to be probable is that Panini was one of
several grammarians who, late in the study of the subject, applied
the Government of Bombay- Narai is discoursing on the precise sigaificance
of the word ^*^ in the following canon of Rudrata :
And his Note is
f?^^':^^fT?^ PrfTlf^cT?r^ft q"?^ II
For ^# ?q^^: (" lyap is the &desa or substitution for ktva) the Palm-
leaf xMSS. hasT^r ^qrr^^: and the other ^?tf ?q^K^: . The paper MS. reads
^H"lf%^^rrT^^. ^^f^af^^rr T^^ ('* a word the n of the anti of which has
been dropped) appears to me to be wanted.
Pischel sees in Nami's words here a statement to the effect that great
poets use ungrammatical forms in order to impress on their readers the
importance of not doing so, which would not, it may be remarked in passing,
be a very nice adaptation of means to ends. But Nami doe§ not say this.
What he says is that by the use of tlie word ^*? here his author intends to
exclude apasabdas or ungrammatical forms, ami that Rudrata returns to this
subject to lay stress upon it, although it might be considered to have been
already disposed of by what he said about vyutpatti, in view of the fact that
even great poets sometimes slip in this respect. (As when Byron writes 'lay '
for * lie,' a mistake which I observe a good English scholar has taken upon
himself lately quietly to correct in editing an English Anthology for Indian
students. It may be doubted whether Byron would have thanked him.)
Namisadhu's short roll of offenders — all of them by his own stntement
mahakavis — has only four names in all, Panini, Bhartriliari, Kalidasa, and
Bharavi. I have spoken of the peculiar significance I am disposed to attach
to Nami's reference to Panini. I confess I think that he purposely heads his
list with two, Panini and Bhartrihari, whose emineuce as grammarians makes
their conduct to the pedantic mind all the more anomalous. In any case
the dilemma is obvious. Namisddhu must be added to the list of learned
men witnessing to a poet, and a great poet, Panini, who either needed not
to be distinguished from the only wearer of that name known to these later
days, or was in their minds not distinguishable from him. In the former
alternative how has this second Panini dropped into utter oblivion : in the
second is there any good reason to suppose that men Uke Kshemeudra and
3
1^ pRtfAT(mr.
themselves to consolidate and perfect the system of Sanskrit
grammar, that the archaisms on which stress is laid are dn©
la the fact that he was dealing with older docaments, great part
of which he incorporated, that the superior excellence of his
grammar was early apparent, and has never since been effec-
tually challenged, but that he was also a poet, and a great poet.
Writing as a poet in the poetical language of his day. What
that day was— how farPanini will eventually have to be brought
^own from the date now accepted for him, or how far it may be,
on the contrary, advisable to push into remoter antiquity th&
lyric poetry of Northern India — is a question which we have no
adeqiJate means now of determining. Let us then wait.
To the paper which is the subject of this Preface I have
added a second paper in which I gave the Society a fresh trans-
cript and a translation of the inscription set Kansim near Kotah,
This inscription is dated i» the Malwa era which I have shown
to be identical with the Vikramaditya era, and to have been in
use under that name before 544 A. d. In reading and transla-
ting the inscription I received great assistance from Dr,
Bhagvanlal Indraji and from Dr, Bhandarkar, to whom I desire
to offer my best thanks.
Bombay, 2bth August 1 885.
Namisadim, identifying the poet with the grammaTian, conld have been i»
errtir,
Nami's exact date is still uncertain. Kielhorn gives Samvat 1176 as the
«!ate of the Palm leaf Manuscript. I have shown that the verse from whieh
this is taken reall)' gives Kami's date for the composition of his work. Our
pHlm-lcnf MS. may be the first copy of the work. The reading diflFers m the
two MSS. The Palm-leaf MS. has
For 5g?TFri^ here the Paper MS. reads q^l^lf^. Kami therefore wrote
tliii book either m Samvat 1176 or in Samvat 112^^
ON THE AUCHITYALAMKARA OF
KSHEMENDRA,
WITH A NOTE ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI.
In the coarse of a visit paid recently to Rajendrasuri, a Jain re-
ligious teacher at the time in Ahmedabad, I noticed that his list of
books, which he kindly let me look over, contained an entry Auchitya-
larnkfira. Buhler, in his review of my First Report on the Search for
Sanskrit Manuscripts (Indian Antiquary, January 1884) pointed out that
I had omitted from my list of the known works of the Kashmir poet
Kshemendraa small treatise on rhetoric called Kavikanthabharanam, our
first copy of which Buhler himself obtained. " An examination of my
apograph of this manuscript by Mr. J. Schonberg,"^ Buhler goes on to
say, **has shown that it contains, besides the Kavikanthabharanam,
another small treatise on Alamkara called Auchityavicharacharcha. "
Eajendrasuri's Auchityalamkara turned out to be the work here
referred to : and through his courtesy in lending it I am able to offer in
the following paper a short account of the valuable data for the history
of Sanskrit literature which, within very small compass, it offers in rich
profusion. A more extended notice of the book itself, and of the Kavi-
kanthabharanam, which here also, as in the previous case, is presented
in the same manuscript, I hope to give in my forthcoming Third
Report. From the fact just alluded to it is perhaps to be conjectured
that the two books were generally regarded as supplementary the one
to the other,
A word of preface is perhaps desirable as to the importance to us of
a work like this. The poet Kshemendra tells us himself that one of
his books, the Samayamatrika, was finished during the reign of
king Ananta, in the 25th year of the Kashmirian cycle = A.D. 1050
( Biihler's Report, p. 46). He was a most learned and voluminous writer,
and, what is more to our purpose, he invariably give his references
when quoting illustrations of the breach or observance of the rhetorical
^ Mr. Schonberg has since pabliuhed ou aooount of the Kavikanth^bharanam.
Wien, 1884
20 ON THE AUCHITYALAMKARA
rules he is discussing. We obtain from him then many names of
Indian poets and their works, for all of which we get Kshemendra'sown
time as a lower date, after which they cannot have flourished or been
written. Kshemendra's favourite method, as has been hinted, is to
give first one or more examples of verses which comply with his rule,
and to follow with one or more examples of verses which do not. It
must be said for him that he deals out praise and censure as a true
critic who is no respecter of persons. In more than one instance in-
deed he illustrates the two sides of the canon he is dealing with by
different verses from the same work of his own. These verses by
Kshemendra himself are not included in the analysis which follows.
I. Amaraka. 1. 54Mlr4|HricfiMrr|. BohtHngk 1035, from Ama-
rusatakam. yd'^M^'Sir: ^rRT idid^HT^. 8 fK^i^ch^KH^^^:-
" If you must go you shall go ; but why so soon ? Turn and stand
while I gaze on your face. Your life and mine are but two drops of
the water that will rush out of the bucket when it turns the top of the
wheel : and when that is done who can say whether you and I, in the
lives to come, shall ever meet again."*
^fichi may also mean a waterclock, when the figure would resemble
our one of the * sands of life.' But I think snif shows that the sense is
as I have indicated. It would b6 curious if the same figure underlies
a common English coUoquiahsm.
This verse is quoted also in the Kavikanthabharanam (Schonberg,
p. 14).^ Our two examples show that this poet Amaraka is not to be
distinguished from the author of the Amarusatakam. Aufrecht (Z. D. M.
G. 27, 7) thinks Amaru was the original form afterwards sanskritized
into Amaru.
II. Bhatta Induraja. 1. STirnr ^Ttt TTTfT:. Kavya Prakasa, p. 453
(Calc. Ed. 1876). /3 f% ?f R ^rf^rf ^^ *I^^. ^ TTrfPr^^f^.
Aufrecht ( Z. D. M. G. 27, 94 ) cites this verse from the Sarngaddha-
rapaddhati under Srisuka. 2. HnqiJ T^^r^HY--
» "For we most needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which can-
not be gathered up again." II Samuel, xiv. 14.
•' In ^ both Manuscripts read C^^?^ in the Karikantbfibhnranam, and T^f^
in the book before us. Professor Bhandarkar suggests ^f5Tt5r ' moments.'
OF KSHEMENDRA. 21
III. Srimad UtpalarAja. ^^f ^r ^C ^. Bohtliagk 844, from
Bhartrihari.
IV. Karpatika.
" As I sat perishing with cold, and plunged like the moon in Maghft
( the moon surrounded by clouds ) in a sea of thought, the fire sank
low, and my blistered lips and hunger-parched throat were of no
avail to keep it alight. Sleep has left me and gone like an insulted
wife: and the night, like land given to a good holder, is no whit spent.**
This is the verse which Kalhana in the Rajatarangini ( III. 181 ),
puts into the mouth of the poet Matrigupta,* who is there said to
have composed it impromptu, in reply to the king's enquiry as to why
he alone of all the palace servants was not asleep. Its appearance
here is noteworthy. Kshemendra in another passage of this small
book quotes Matrigupta by name. It is impossible, I think, to say
whether we are to take Karpatika as the real name of the author of
one of the works which are summarised for us in the Rajatarangim or
as a synonym of Matrigupta, referring to his condition as a suppliant
for the king's favour. The verse occurs also in Vallabhadeva's Subha-
shitavali, where it is ascribed to Matrigupta, with the much better read-
ing ^rrFTT^^f^^^ 'ir^RTR^ * dried up with cold like a peaspod.'
V. Kalidasa. 1. 3T^ g- m^^T^rf TTF'Tr. RV. IV. 70. 2 f^»T^f?PT°
Vikram. Act II. « ^^'H^rt^T^^JTr^'TriR^n::. »T?5^!J^mi^l^rr- Both
good readings-
The heading to this verse is ^nrr ^^'^^c^ 5jrn%^R^- I ^ave
not found the verse in any known work of Kalidasa, and can only
suppose that Kuntesvaradautyam is the title of a lost work by the
prince of Indian poets. 4. grF^5T^°- KS. VIIL 87. Kshemendra's
testimony to the authenticity of the eighth canto. "3^i|r7H^*iMHl'^^''
5. mrw JPfr ^Tf?: KS. III. 72. 6. WtT t^. Meghaduta V. 6. Cf.
* Compare Bhau Daji's Paper in Vol. VI. of the Journal, B. B. R. A. S. p. 213.
22 ON THE AUCHITYALAMKAEA
note on No. 4. » rJysvf^JJT: 7. ^M^^thlf^f . KS. III. 29. 8. ^"Iijc^^
^%. KS. III. 28.
VI. KUMABADASA.
Bohtlingk 562, from Ind. Stud. 8, 414, where it was quoted from
Aufrecht. MS. fw^^ff^- As long ago as 1859 Aufreclit, in his
edition of Ujjvaladatta's Commentary on the Unadi Sutras, pointed out
that the fragment of a verse ^CrT^ ^T^r% ^r^^T: given by Ujjvaladatta
ia his comment, on I. 82, occurs also in the Mahabhashya, in the
note on p. I, 3, 48. ( Kielh. Ed. p. 283. ) Aufrecht at the same time
gave the whole verse as he found it quoted by Niirayana on Kedara-
bhatfca. The discovery that Kshemendra quotes this verse and assigns
it to Kumaradasa will one day I hope prove a valuable datum
for the Mahabhrishya itself. Unfortunately we do not yet know
Kumaradasa's own date. But the following verses by him are quoted
in the Sarngaddharapaddhati and Subhashitavali ; and are presented
here as, with the present example, presenting strong internal evidence
that a writer who quotei Kumaradasa cannot have lived at the date
now widely accepted for PatanjaU.
3:^ RVTT^r it f^ 3fi^ ^-
From Aufrecht, Z. D. M. G. 27, 17. 2 ^STFT f^5^ Aufrecht, who
points out that it occurs in the Amarusatakam. 3. T!T:5ToFrsifj4^<«^*M.
Cited by Aufrecht.
" When the wind blew cold with showers of icy spray, Love took
fright, and fled for shelter to the heart of the forsaken lover where the
fire of sorrow burned." Quoted and translated by Aufrecht, who
compares the Anacreontic fieaovvKTiois jtot' &paiK.
" The wandering Sun has gone to the South country and there scatter-
ed his rays: now like a poor priest (who with the hope of alms in
bis heart has been holding out his hand to every passer-by) he goes to
or KSHIMSNDBA, ^
the North country to repair his heams (goes to the rich man's house
to get wealth.)" This last example is from the Subhashitavali, It ha»
a very modern ring.
VII. Malava Kuvala\a.
1. -"i^rl^^H^: ap^ ^'^nr ^ i^"^ I ^
VIII. GaTJDA KuMBHAKiRA. 1. c^jlT^ TprftriMMf^j^^ ;. A
description of Hanumau crossing the straits.
IX. Gangaka.
Kshemendra quotes this verse as a praiseworthy asirvachanam by
" My own teacher Gangaka."
X. Chandaka.
1. fr^: ^^r^- ^^- ^ttRt^T^: ^^t^:
w^ ^^ ^r^. fq"4x=* *"<Tr?nff rTT^ : I
Bohtlingk 1895 from Bhartrihari.
2. ff5%?rRiT%H qT^imr^:%^^:. 3. ^^Tfrferltt:.
t^ PT^'^s^ ^'^ '^ q^^nnf '^ I
M^'MM ^^ ftqr^ ^^?f ^RT't II
"In battles Fortune goes now here, now there, and for them I will
not answer. Fate gives victory and defeat to whom she will. This
one thing I promise, that when I go down into the fight the enemy
shall not look upon my horses' backs."
XL DivAKA. 1 ^^ Ni^RN-d . 2qnT%?rr%. BiihtliDgk 4102
24 ON THE AUCHITYALAMKARA
from Bhartrihari. a RTrTTr«^?nTn^f^nT?#. /3 ^r^fqtJT^. V ll ' f^ -
XII. Dharmakirti.
Of this poet Aufrecht writes as follows in the sixteenth volume of
Weber's Indische Studien «—
•' Dharmakirti is one of the oldest writers on Alatnkara. A work of
his, called Bauddhasaqigati, is mentioned by Subandhu in the Vasa-
vadatta ( p. 205, ed. Hall). In all probability he is the Buddhist
philosopher of that name who according to Wassiljew wrote a commen-
tary on Dinnaga's Pramiliiasamuchchaya, as also the work Pramana-
varttika, Pramanavinischaya, and Prasannapada. A half verse by the
philosopher Dharmakirti is quoted in the chapter of the Sarvadarsana-
samgraha that deals with Buddhism. Anandavardhana quotes Dharma-
kirti in the Dhvanyaloka : the Sarngadharapaddhati gives one, and the
Saduktikarnamritam eight of his verses."
Six of the verses referred to here will be found in Aufrecht's paper.
A seventh is the verse ^fW^^^(^T^%, which, as Aufrecht notes,
had already been given by Bohtlingk from the Kuvalayananda, without,
of course, any author's name. Kshemendra in the book before us is
now found to corroborate the statement of the Saduktikarnamritam as
to the authorship of this verse, and so far to corroborate generally the
statements of the Saduktikarnamritam as to the authors cited.
••He fecked not of the store of beauty he spent on her or of the toil
he took : he made her a fire of torment for people who were dwelling
at their ease : she herself is doomed to sorrow as one who can never
find a mate : say, what did the Creator propose to himself when he
tnade this woman ? "
The verse is quoted in censure of the employment of the word rpas^n'
"ffffTrT:. So also Aufrecht. Bohtlingk aTT^rT:.
' Bohtlingk ^T^~< '^m ^R^ ^^. So also A with ^^ for ^^\r
' A and B ^-^iJoirj^^rJT^rHI^^.
• B, ci'=fiRj{r ?T'^m.
Ot' KSHEMENDRA. 25
which Kshemendra says has nothing to recommend it but the jingle
\vitli the words rT^ cT^. The poet should have used some such word
as ^s^^f : This shows that the reading of our book (and of the Sad-
ukti) is undoubtedly the right one, as may be said also, I think,
of the other variants presented.
Other two verses — ST^fNt ^TTTPTf and ST^Trfr ?rr*-^^^r: — which in the
Skm. are ascribed to Dharmakirti " belong," says Aufrecht, "to Bhar-
trihari. Their appearance in the anthology under Dharmakirti is to be
accounted for on the theory that the compiler of the Saduktikar-
namritam took them from Dharmakirti' s book on rhetoric without
troubling himself to trace them further."
Kshemendfa in this book assigns six verses which now stand in
Bhartrihari's ^atakas to other authors, and claims at least one for
himself, a state of things which makes us hesitate to accept Aufrecht's
theory here. The alternative theory, that the book which passes under
Bhartrihari's name is a late compilation, deserves renewed consideration.
XIII. Bhatta. NArAyAna. 1. ^Tfr^t^fTr^rr^PTrT. 2. ^r ^T: ^^.
Both from the Veiiisaiphara.
XIV. Parimala.
" He neither eats nor drinks, and he abjures the society of woman *
he lies on the sand, puts from him all worldly pleasures, and courts the
hottest sun. Oh Lion of the House of Malva, it seems to me that
this Gurjara King is doing penance in the forests of Mar war that^ he
may be found worthy to touch the dust of your feet."
2. rT^ f^rf f^qT^JTrTT ^^ |^-
** There, good king ! thy servant got a footing, as fate would have
it, and there he remained so many days, curious at heart — there,
where thy fame sets dancing the pearls on the quivering breasts o^
the deer-eyed women."
4,
20 ON THE ACCHlTrALAMEARA
3. HTTFR ffW ^Tt^R ^fT^ ^^TsT^^TRT^^
^rirnt '^f^KTT f^'^ ^: T^l: fTTn" ^F II
"The silly Gurjara Queen, as she. wanckrs terror-struck in the forest
ever and anon casts her eyes on her husbaixl's sword to see if there be
no vratef (vnTT) there, bethinking herself in her heart how often m t?ae
days that are gone she has heard the bards say ' Great king, the hosts
of your foes have gone down in the battle through which your sword's
edge (>^nT) swept.' "
"O Hill of the River of Love. O Crest Jewel of Kings, O Home o{
all Goodness, O Milky Ocean of Cleverness, O Lover of iTjjayinf, Q
thou that wert a living God of Love to young women, () Kinsman to*
all the Good, O Brewer of the Nectar of the Arts, where O King, art
thou gone : wait for me.*'
These verses show that Parimala's lost poem probably present an
almost contemporary record of one of the earlier struggles between the
sovereigns of Malva and Gujarafc.
I will only conjecture here that the theme of the poem was that
expedition in Gujarat despatched by Tailapa, under a General of the
name of Barapa, ** against Mularaja, the founder of the Cbaulul^a
dynasty of Anahilapattana, who for some time was hard pressed, though
according to the Gujarat chroniclers the General was eventually defeated
with slaughter." ® The striking verse in the Kfivyaprakasa il^^M.
9^ 5T Tnrq'f^ TT (p- 450, Calc. Ed. 1876) wears every appearance of
being from, the same work, for which we should be on the look out.
XV. Parivramka.
1- rTTf ^ rnf ^^ rTBT
^mr ^ 5^w ^^^ g^KT: i
^^"ir ^ ^znTH" ^^^^ ^nrrr: 1 1
This seems a better form of the verse which Bohtlinglir, No. 4631^
H!^T,3rTirr: gives from Bhartrihari.
' Bhandarkar : Early History of the Dekkan,. pi 59. See also the Ms Mala,
Cap. IV. to which Bhandarkar refers.
or KSHEMENDRA, 27
XVI. BhatT'^ Prabhakara.
This poet is already known only from Aufrecht's citation from the
Sarngadharapaddhati of what is surely one of the prettiest compli-
caeats to beauty even a poet ever devised.
^^^^ '^^: CRr^ It
** She spoils indifFerently those who see her and those who see her
not : these lose their hearts, those might as well have never had their
eyes,"
RT^r ^if^ ^^ ^^f^ ^ ^n^'- T^^TrT I
^^JTrfTf^^^^rTPT? ^%? '^^rf iTtT'JL II
XVII. Sri Pravarasena, Two verses are quoted, which both
occur in this writer's Setubandha. I, 2, and III, 20.
XVIII. Bhatta BAna. Three verses by Bana, the author of Kadam-
bari, are quoted. Two of these, 1. "Sf^c^T^: a^cl 2. ^H^4|', are from
that book, and call for no remark. But the third is of extraordinary
interest for us. It is the verse
which now stands in the Araarusatakam ( No. 98 ). In his note
Kshemendra tells us that this verse is part of a description of the state
to which Kadambari was reduced by the absence of Chandrapida. 1 1
would appear then that Bana, in addition to the work known to us,
treated the same theme, or part of the same theme, in verse : and with
this clue we can assign to their place in such a composition more
than one of the verses cited by Bana in the later anthologies.
XIX. Bhatta Bhallata.
28 ON THE AUCHITYALAMKARA
BtfT: ^r^Tfr ^nr^ JT>fft ^ ?tk 'ftrf 5%
The use of singiug or music as one of the weapons of the hunter is
often referred to. Aufrecht quotes ten verses by this poet from the
Sarngaddharapaddhati.
XX. Bhavabhuti. 1. ^r ^'T ^frT: ^f^H". Uttara R. Act. 2.
^ff^*r^; ^Trrrtr^ Uttara R. Act. IV. 3, f^^re^ ?r f^^Raft«T'^fi:rTT:
Uttara R. Act. V. a frfg-frT ^^sTf. /^ g;^ ^f^^^. y ^T^rfr^^r^^rT
8 t^55R>T^. In the heading to the second of these examples the poet
is in both MSS. called Bhavabhilpati.
XXI. MAgha.
••The hungry cannot feed upon grammar, or the thirsty satisfy
themselves with the nectar of poetry. No man ever exalted his house
by learning. Get money. Learning leads to nothing." Note in the
Sisapalavadha. Bohtlingk 44!84, from the Subhashitarnava.
XXIL MAtrigupta.
Note that Kshemendra would seek to distinguish between Matri-
gupta and Kalidasa. Compare Max Miiller * India : what can it teach
us?' p. 133.
XXIII. RAjaputra MuktApida.
^^ ^PPt ^ TW^ |rf^ f^^ ^TN^: II
••From afar the hermit gazes with mingled love and fear at the mighty
elephant, whose throat is encircled by swarms of bees heavy laden
OP KSHEMENDRA. ' 29
with tliR juice that exudes from its temples, and rememhers how this is
he whom at first he nourished with the tender tops of the rice-plant, and
who drank from a leafy cup the milk that was over from the sacrifice."
XXIV. Yasovarmadeva.
Yasovarman, according to x-Vufrecht (Z. D. M. G. 36, 521) wrote a
drama, Ramahhyiidaya, which is cited by Abhinavagupta.
XXV. Bhatta Lattana.
XXVI. R^JASEKHARA. 1 . q'cT^f: ^'T^^^f'C:' Balanlmayana Act
V.(p. 121 Ben. Ed.) /3 JT^T'^: TT^m. Ed. i(q^V TRT^t. Sf^^T'^
is given by BR. (compare also Bohtlingk's Smaller Dictionary) from
schol. on p. 3. 2. 33, as a word for which a reference was not then
available. — fPT^: ^^TT-
2. ^'Tfff^^^rf^rr: f^rfT^irrCr^sT^r^r
jrNtbr7^rfTfrf^rT: sr^riT^'r^H-Tft^rf^: I
Rajasekhara was perhaps not such a rake as he professes to be.
The verse may go to show that similar autobiographical couplets, of
which tradition has preserved a great many, may oftener be genuine
than is sometimes supposed.
3. f^f^ =^5":. 4. "i^r^m^ ^5=^, Balaram^yana Act IV. (p. 87).
C. TPT^^: 5rT%T> Balaramayana Act II. (p. 36). 7. TPT 5'^.
8. ^Trfrfff?, Balaramayana Act I. (p. 19). 9. ^^5^«;5"5TT
10. ^fTTTJTi.^.
XXVII. M.iLAVA Rubra.
Given as by Bhata in the Subhashitaharavali.
30 ON THE AUCHITTALAMKARA
Aufrecht writes the name of this poet Malavarudra. But compare
Malava Kuvalaya and Gauda Kumbhakara above.
XXVIII. SEi Vakra.
1. ^ ^ftim ^t ^T^ ^ r^^h ^^ H?MHa
This one verse is so far all that has been found of a poem — by a poet
himself also otherwise unknown — which must contain a contemporary
account of one of the early leagues of the Hindu princes against their
Musalman invaders. Compare what has been said above of Parimala's
lost work. Jalantara here is I presume Jullundur.
XXIX. VarIhamihira,
" The waning mooii enters the orb of the aun at each month's end,
and having there renewed his fires goes each day further from his
helper : nay, when his fulness comes, as come it will, vies in the
eastern sky with the setting orb of day. Verily, verily the cold-blooded
man never leaves off his ingratitude and his meanness."
Given in Vallabhadeva's Sabhashitavali as by Dharadhara.
XXX. BhagavAn Maharshi VyAsa.
^Tc^ THf^Tr TT^' ?3r^ TJ^ f^^^: I
** Doubtless woman is a pleasant thing and wealth too : but life
abides no longer than the glance shot from the corner of her eye by a
love-sick girl."
Bohtlingk 6733, from the Subhashitarnava, with JRITfrr: ^TPTT: in «•
XXXI. SyAmala. 'J^jto'tK: The only ^yamala we know of is the
Syamala who was Bana's cousin. Ilall's Vasavad. Introd. p. 41.
OF KSHBMENDRA.
31
XXXII. Sri Harsha. ^fTJTrc^f^'Rrr, Ratnfiv. Act II., B,
ST^r:^:. 2. ^7 ^tTR-^^, Ratnav. Act II. 3. t^^ ^^^:, Ratnav.
Act II. a STfr^^. 4. q-Rj:?^^. Ratnav. Act /3 m^rtHH;. 8 l^f^Rf-
q-^RTsr^T'T R'iTrrrf^^^nfr, Ratnav. Vishk.
To the twelve compositions by Kshemendra which were already
known *° Schonberg, in his paper on the Kavikanthabharana, added
other eight, which he found quoted or referred to in that book. Hia
list is as follows s —
13 Sasivansa,
14 (Padya) Kadambari^
15 Chitrabharata,
16 Lavanyavati,
17 Kanakajanaki,
18 Desopadesa,
19 Muktayali,
20 Amritataranga.
Three of these are quoted in our book also, where the Chitrabharats
is called a Nataka, and the Lavanyavati and the Muktavali are called
Kavyas. In addition the following new names occur, Avasarasara,
Baudhavadanalata, Nitilata, Munimatamimansa, Lalitaratnamala^
Vinayavalli, Vatsyjiyanasutrasara. Of the books in the earlier list
the Chaturvargasamgraha is the only one quoted under the same name.
1 should make some small amends to the Society for a dull paper if
I could adequately describe the scene where I got this book, and the
impression that scene made upon me. In an upper chamber of a by-
street in Ahmedabad were gathered over a hundred of the common
people, listening eagerly to their word of life, as that was communicated
by Rajendrasuri to his more immediate disciples. A little company of
women sat apart, but not so as to be out of hearing of the teacher,
lo (1) Brihatkathamanjari. (2) BMratamanjari. (3) KamviMsa. (4) BA-
mayanakathdsdra. (5) Dasavatdracharita, (6) SamayamAtrika. (7) Vyfis^-
shtaka. (8) Suvrittatilaka, (9) LokaprakSsa. (10) Nitikalpataru, (11) Ch&-
TucharyaButaka. (12) Cbaturvargasaingraha.
32
ON THE AtCHITYALAMlCARA OP KSHEMENDRA.
At the end of our conversation a young Rajpoot, a rich young man
as I could judge from his dress, who had been an intent observer of all
that passed between his teacher and myself, rose from the crowd, put
his folded hands to his head, and told me in his own language that
he had one request to make to me. Between Rajendrasuri and
another teacher then in Ahmedabad there were vital ditferences— as to
the kind of garments men desiring salvation should wear, and as to
whether in the evening hymn they should recite the three verses only,
or four. Would I undertake to solve his doubt ?
I put him oif with a jest which I have sometimes regretted since.
But I came away with new wonder at the strangeness of human life ;
and, as I hope, with fresh sympathy for all of the one family who in
every place are thus feeling after God, if haply they may find Him.
Note on the Date of Patanjali.
*' Pafcanjali's date, B.C. 150, may now be relied on." — Bhandarkar
m his Early History of the Dekkan, p. 7. So too Kiclhorn, though
he was more directly concerned with the question of the authenticity
af the text of the book, maintains that " we are bound to regard the
text of the Mahabhashya as given by our MSS. to be the same as it
existed about 2000 years ago." (Indian Antiquary, IV., p. 107, and
v., p. 241.) I will state very briefly why I think the question must
still be regarded as open. Kalhana's verse : —
Rajatarangint, I., 175 (p. 7, Calc. Ed., 1835),
appears to me to have exercised what can only be described as a perni-
cious influence on this controversy. In itself it contains no indication
that Kalhana so much as had PatanjalVs Mahabhashya in his mind
when writing the passage. But if we grant, for the sake of argument,
Prof. Weber's contention (Ind, Stiid., 5, lOS), that the transaction
Kalhana is referring to is clearly the same as that spoken of in Bhar-
trihari's Vakyapadiya, and grant also, under the same reserve, that it
follows that Kalhana here is speaking of Patanjali's work, the verse
even then cannot bear the weight which is sought to be put upon it.
It is not open to us to quote Kalhana as corroborating Bhartrihari's
statement, when it is clear that, writing in the 12th century, he is, if
he is referring here to Patanjali at all, dishing up for us and doctoring
a story which he must have got directly or indirectly from Bhartrihari
or from the same sources as Bhartrihari. Still less is it justifiable
to transfer to Kalhana the credit that would attach to any statement
made in the Vakyapadiya as to the date at which this mysterious
transaction took place. It is Kalhana, and not Bhartrihari, who here
seems to connect Abhimanyu of Kashmere with Patanjali's commen-
tary : and I do not understand why so much weight should be attach-
ed to this one statement, occurring as it does in a part of theRajataran"
giiii wliich, as Buhler puts it (Report, p. 59),* is full of improbabiUties
5
34 • ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI.
and absurdities. A similar reasoning holds good of Kalhana's second
Terse : —
Rajatarangini IV., 487 (p. 58, Calc. Ed.)
I notice that Max Miiller ( Note, p. 335 ), suggests a doubt as to
whether Kalhana is here referring to Patanjali's Mahiibhashya.
But if we grant that he is, here too his statement must be! checked by
the passage in Bhartrihari. And as soon as that is done it becomes at
once apparent that on Kalhana alone rests the responsibility of divid-
ing the story as it stands in Bhartrihari into two parts and separating
the two by centuries. Bhartrihari tells us that to Chandra and his
school was due the revived study of the Mahabbashya. Kalhana puts
Chandra in the first century, for Abhimanyu's greater glory, and as
he cannot ignore the fact that something of the kind occurred in the
reign of king Jayapida ( A.D. 755-786), he invites us to believe that
twice in the history of Kashmere did the king of the country inter-
fere to set the Mahabhashya on its feet again. Of the two passages
the second appears to me to be far more deserving of credit than the
first : and the mR^vI ( which need not be construed with HH^^)*
refers to the state from which Chandra had (recently ?) rescued the
book, not to a state into which it had been permitted in Kashmere to
fall centuries after his benevolent activity,*
* As for example Kielhorn does. " * The King having sent for interpreters
[ reading with the Paris edition «ql^'^|'^f*!^] brought into use in his realm the
Mahabhashya, which had ceased to be studied' (in Kashmei'e, and was there
fore no longer understood)." Indian Antiquary, V., p. 243. It may be worth
noting that ^^^^TcT is the ordinary expression in the case of the first patron
of a book. Thus for example in the colophon to a MS. of Hfila in my possession
SAtavShana is called the ^T^n^ of the Kal^pa grammar. Our word therefore
should be translated, as Kielhorn does here, or as Max Miiller in his Note,
p. 335, " introduces": and this verse in itself does not suggest that wbat Jay&pida
did was to « re-establish " (Max Miiller, p. 334) the Mahabhashya.
* In his reply to this paper Professor Bhslndarkar takes this sentence ta
mean that I understand Kalhana to put Chandra in Jayfipida'a reign, and that
I accept that as a fact on Kalbana's authority. This of course leads straight
to the absurdity of Bhartribari's having moTitioned a fact which took place
105 years after his death. As my words have been n>ade matter of public
comment I must leave them as they were written. But I take this opportunity
of saying that, for my owinpart, I entirely repudiate the construction Bhandar-
kar puts on them. I am concerned bore o»ly with what Kalbana's meaning
Oh- THE DATE OP PATANJALI. 35
Better texts of the Rajatarangini, and a careful collation of the two
verses, as they ought to be read, with Bhartrihari would, I think,
strengthen this position, I have little doubt that the Parvata of
Bhartrihari's verse is, as Max Miiller suggests, no other than the hill of
Chittore, which was a centre of learning for the southern country,
(Compare my First Report, p. 47). I think it is not impossible that the
words rys^^ ^^HM^iaR, which from the crux of Raj. I., 176, conceal
Bhartrihari's own phrase M^rtlc^Hi't ?7«^^, If Kielhorn's conjectural
emendation rjst^ ^^PrfTrrffirrT*!, be ever confirmed, it will become
still more obvious that the two verses have one and the same origin.
They will then almost textually agree.
But if we are thus really dependent on Bhartrihari's statement which
contains no note of time, we are entitled to range further thanGoldstiicker
and Bhandarkar do in their search for events and names which will suit
certain passages in the Mahabhashya itself, where Patanjali, as they
hold, is referring to contemporaneous or recent history.* I will not
discuss the question here as to whether these instances really do, in Gold-
stiicker's words, " concern the moment at which Patanjali wrote." (Pan.
p. 230.) I think it is forgotten in that argument that Patanjali could
trust to the practical acquaintance with the language or literature which
his pupils possessed, much as an English grammarian might without risk
of confusion illustrate after having given the rule, our past and present
by two such phrases, as '*In six days God made Heaven and Earth,"
and "This people perishes with hunger."
Four passages in all, so far as I know, have been adducedlfrom the
Mahabhashya itself as supplying definite chronological data for the
time of Patanjali. The first is the note on Pan., v. 3, 99. Gold-
stiicker, it is true, who brought this passage to light, did not contend
that it proves more than that Patanjali did not live before the first
was : and I sfcill think that he got his Rf^iT^ from the story he read in Bhar-
trihari, and that his MMrl-Hd refers to something that happened in Jaydpida's
time. He may have mixed the two things up together hopelessly : but I
desired to suggest that his own words do not necessarily preclude the supposi-
tion that he himself understood that there was an interval between the his-
torical llff^3^r^ of the Mah&bh­a and Jaydpida's action. — [Note added when
publishing ."l
3 Goldstiicker treated this subject in his 'PAnini: his place in Sanskrit
Literature,' pp. 227-238. The references for Bhandarkar are Indian Antiquary
p, 23J, II., pp. 59, 39, 94 aad 238.
36 ON THE DATE OF PATANJALT.
king of the Maurya dynasty, who was Chandragupta, and who lived
315 B.C.; or, possibly, "if we are to give a natural interpretation to
his words/' that he lived after the last king of this dynasty, or, in
other words, later than 189 before Christ. If the passage stood alone
then, and there were no such thing as cumulative eflfect in arguments
of this kind, the inference sought to be drawn from Patanjali's note on
Pan., V. 3, 99, might be allowed to pass without challenge. But
it will not be denied that this suggestion as to a date hefore which
Patanjali may not be supposed to have lived, when taken in connection
with a date (.\bhimanyu's time), removed from it by two centuries
only, and regarded, on what grounds we have just seen, as a date after
which he may not be supposed to have lived, has done much to
strengthen the conviction that here or hereabout we must look for the
time of Patanjali. Yet I think it can be shown, beyond all manner of
doubt, that this passage has nothing whate\er to do with the matter
in hand, and that, as far as it is concerned, we are as free — or shall I
rather say hampered ?— with regard to the upper date to be assigned to
Patanjali, as I have contended we still are with regard to his lower date.
Panini's rule is ifrft^f^ '^T'^. On which the note is 3TT''"5[
?n"^ vrf^'^^frT' Goldstiicker's explanation of this passage is as follows :-
** ' If a thing,' says Piinini, ' serves for a livelihood, but is not for sale, it
has not the affi.^ ka.' This rule Patanjali illustrates, with the words 'Siva
Skanda Visakha,' meaning the idols that represent here divinities,
and at the same time give a living to the men who possess them,
while they are not for sale. And 'why?* he asks. 'The Mauryas
wanted gold, and therefore established religious festivities.' Good. Pan-
ini's rule may apply to such (idols as they sold); but as to idols which
are hawked about (by common people) for the sake of such worship as
brings an immediate profit, their name will have the affix ka. "
"Whether or not," Goldstiicker goes on to say, " this interesting
bit of history was given by Patanjali ironically, to show that even
affixes arc the obedient servants of kings, and must vanish before the
idols which they sell, because they do not take the money at the
same time that the bargain is made — as poor people do — I do not
know."
In the rest of the passage Goldstu«kcr draws his inference in words
that I have already given.
ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI. 37
Could Patanjali have thus anticipated the super fframmatieam story ?
I thought not : and it was my conviction that there must be some
mistake here which led me to examine closely the passage Goldstiicker
quotes. As a result, I think I can show that Goldstiicker misunder-
stood and mistranslated that passage from top to bottom. I need
hardly say that it requires all the courage Max Muller recommends
thus to challenge that mighty and indignant shade. But I have put
Goldstiicker's explanation fairly before the reader. I will now say how
I understand the passage. If I am right my translation will, I think,
justify itself: and I shall, I hope, be judged to have done some small
service with regard to a question on which much depends. 3TT"^ f^"
«?(% then tells us that a doubt is about to be suggested with regard to
the word BTT'^ occurring in the sutra under comment. " Siva,
Skanda, Visakha," are not three words illustrating Panini's rule. They
form the clause or sentence referred to by the f ^^ preceding. For
rT^f ^ f^'-^ra" is the doubt of which we have been forewarned, and
must be translated: **In that case [if aTT*^ is to be part of the rule]
the following expression is not obtained [?>., must be declared to be
bad grammar, while, as a matter of fact, it is in common use, and so it is
the correctness of the sutra that is in peril.] But if f^: ^fj" ft^l^T;
or ^<fh nr^r^' as Kaiyyata, as 1 think rightly, reads, be an expression
that prima facie throws doubt on the correctness of the sutra, we must
look in it for an indication that the Skanda of this passage is an idol,
and not the god of that name. ^^: in itself cannot be a form of
doubtful authority. The doubt is as to whether in a particular connec-
tion the form ^^^Sfi": should not be used. The word we are in
search of can neither be RT^: nor ^^f :. It must, therefore, be
f^^rnsT:* and we have next to see whether that word, when used
as an adjective to ^^T^: , of its own force suggests that the refer-
ence is to an image or representation, as when we talk of a sitting
Madonna or a sleeping Venus. But a reference to any dictionary will
show that such a meaning is one of the best authenticated senses of
the word n^?^':. ^cfrfr NAIKsi-* means, "A Skanda in act to shoot,"
and that is the phrase given here as affording an example of a form
which apparently under this rule would have to be condemned.
" Why ?" (icR* ^r^«T sc. q- re"t^frr), " it is for gain that Mauryas make
images.''* The Skanda in act to shoot must be an image : and as it
is notorious that images are vendible things it ought not to be possible
to speak of a ^f r f^^^:, but only of a ^gpTf^ R'^n^:.
So far the doubt. And now the Doubter answers himself. H"^ "Good."
38 ON THE DATE OP PATANJALI.
Vendible images made by the Mauryas are, as a class, by the operation
of the word 3TT^ in this sutra, taken out of one of the categories
of things falling under the general rule which enjoins the omission of
affix ka. rTT^ ^ ^^rl " Let it be admitted that so far to them the
rule gR^ ^q^ should not apply, but that the affix ka should be used.
^rr^^rTT: WAlrf ^C^TT^* ^^^ whatever images among these even, are
from the beginning intended for worship and not for sale, rTO Hf^T^'rf^
to them that rule will apply, and the affix ka will be barred/*
The extent of the difference between Goldstiicker's explanation of
this passage and that now offered may be gauged by the last clause
here, "and the affix ka will be barred," which stands for Goldstiicker's
"their names will have the affix ka.'* But Kaiyyata puts beyond all
dispute the question, as to what is the subject of the clauses rfT^ ^ k^ l ^^
and rirg *if^^^, when he says, ^TT^^ N«M^*^ rfr^ ^ ^^ RN4>lf ^-
5f»HnT ^frf. The ^ ^U^ of Patanjali means that the word in question
should have the affix : the HT^^^f^ that it will not.
Two points in this explanation require a further note, though for-
tunately any judgment with regard to them does not affect the argu-
ment. I have so far not met with any native support for the parti-
cular construction put above on the words ^^ R^ll^ :. That —
with or without f^-. — these words refer to the clause immedi-
ately preceding, and not to the sutra, and contain therefore a form or
forms whose currency throws doubt upon the sutra, I believe to be certain.
But the shastris I have been able to consult — in particular Mr. Raja-
ram Shastri, the learned grammarian attached to Elphinstone College —
agree in thinking that the context of the whole passage is sufficient
to show that idols are meant here : and they take the three words Siva,
Skanda, Visakha, in the current acceptation of three names of images.
That theirs is an old view is shown by the way in which the passage
is treated in the Siddhanta Kaumudi, where I'^AH^: is quietly dropped,
and ^fT^^: substituted for it. I put forward that part of my explana-
tion therefore only tentatively, and am quite prepared to find that there
I am wrong. It might have been the more prudent course to hold it
back: but I confess I believe it is right, and am unwilling to abandon it.
The India Office photozincograph of Kaiyyata and one of Kielhorn*s
MSS. omit i%^:. *Kaiyyata's own note on this passage is attached
to the phrase tMi^c^dl: ^W 'J^Trat : I ^lU ^Tf^^zrf^ in which, as
Nagojibhatta puts it, Patanjali "indicates an example for the su-
* As does also the MS. of the Mahfibhushya in the Alwar Library. — [Note
added when publishing. ]
ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI* 39
'55^^Tr?T?T*T 4^Ni^ — t^*^* is, I take it, states circumstances
Under which it will come into play without giving an actual exam-
ple. If Kaiyyata then — whose note runs in full ^n^^rTT ffrT I ^:
f^'^'hl^nd fif^ — illustrates his own note of that part of the passage
by an example of the converse case ( ^TT^ ?^rast^F% &c.,) he is not
to be taken as repeating Patanjali's illustration of the doubt that went
beforehand, and confirming the reading there. In such a context a
different illustration seems called for. The whole result is that *'Skando
Visakha" is a phrase which may or may not be right, according to the
context, while " Sivak^n vikriniti" is imperative. I do not therefore
think that we are to see in Kaiyyata's example RNchrFc<9hl"j7ri proof
that he read f^T^: in his text of the Mahabhashya. I am more disposed
to see in it the source of the subsequent corruption of that text.
The quotation just made from Kaiyyata will illustrate the other
point on which a doubt may be entertained as to the correctness of
the translation I have given. What is the subject of 3^?^^ in Kaiy-
yata's sentence? Goldstiicker supplied "common people," whom he
next contrasted with the royal dynasty of the Mauryas. But is it not
the Mauryas themselves who are here represented as setting apart
for purposes of peripatetic worship some of the images they make ?
I believe that to the present day the makers of idols contrive that
their profession shall pay the same double debt. That seems to me
the more natural construction: and so also in Patanjali's note
'"Ml^c^dr : seems to me to mean " whichever among these. " I do not
however dispute that xr^X' here may refer to images in general
(3T^:) and not to images made by Mauryas (*il4<4if^4dM?:)» or that
ST3f»^ "^ay mean " people wander " and not " they wander."
I will only add that ^nrfcT 'J^aT^f: must be taken as two words,
though both Goldstiicker and Kielhorn (Ed., p. 429) take them as one.
^flff^ does not qualify ^^j and there is no question here of " such
worship as brings an immediate profit '* (Goldstiicker' s translation).
What is insisted on is that the affix ka will be barred in all cases
where the images have from the beginning been meant for worship and
not for sale. Compare Nagojibhatfca's gloss —
There is, therefore, I contend, no such contrast between the Mauryas
and common people as Goldstiicker discovered in this passage : and
40 ON THE DATE OF PATANJALl.
with that vanishes the only foundation for his belief that the Mauryas
intended here are the dynasty of that name. They are a guild or caste
of idol-makers, as Weber pointed out was apparently NAgojibhatta's
explanation, (Compare Weber, Indische Stiidien, p. 150). I ought to
add that Weber also noted that ^^\: must not be translated, as Gold-
stacker does, by "religious festivals. " I am not quite certain how far
Weber intends his translation to be a correction of Goldstiicker's. I
notice that he puts, '*Auf diese passt die Regel nicht^" for Gold-
stiicker's "Panini's rule may apply to such. " But he does not, as in
the other case, call attention to this as a correction : though, if it is meant
for a correction, it is a very important one. I mention the matter, because
I am of course anxious to yield priority to a scholar eminent no less
for his fairness than for his learning and achievements for any part of
the foregoing explanation which he may see reason to claim as his own.
Of the three remaining passages in the Mahabhashya which are
relied on, that cited by Bhandarkar f ^ ^sqf*f^ ^If^ff: — is I think
the only one which, as matters stand at present, really concerns us.
Goldstiicker it is true has shown that Patanjali illustrates a varttika of
K{ityayana according to which the imperfect should be used when the
fact related is 'out of sight, notorious, but could be seen by the person
who uses the verb, * by the two clauses aTF^^q'JT: ^r%^ I ^rF'T^^T^'H"
^TT^^rf^^r^ "the Yavanas besieged Ayodhya : the Yavanas besieged the
Madhyamikas. " To these two passages the doubt I have hinted
above as to the validity of the major premiss in this argument appears
specially applicable. Is it not a perfectly reasonable view to suppose
that the varttika is illustrated by clauses which, tahen along with it,
serve their purpose apart altogether from the time at which the gram-
marian lived? To suppose in other words that the user (infrrFT)
whose relation to the time and circumstances of the action is specified
is not necessarily, or even probably, Patanjali. Is this not indeed just
what Nagojibhatta means when he says that we are to gather from the
clause itself that the speaker is contemporaneous with the action —
But farther discussion of this point here may well be waived in the
absence so far of any information as to the events referred to. Havoc has
already been made of Goldstiicker's Buddhist sect of Madhyamikas :
and we do not know either that the ' Yavanas ' besieged ' Saketa ' in
the time of Menanders, or that they did not besiege that city more
than once in the centuries that followed. In the case of Bhandar-
ON THE DATE OF PATANJALI. 41
kar*s example it seems to me to be more probable than not, that the
whole context — the illustration itself I regard as open to the same
reasoning as the other two— ^points to the conclusion thatPatanjali lived
at the time, and perhaps at the court, of Pushpamitra, But if that be
80 there were more Pushpamitras, or Pushyamitras, than the king who
reigned in the second century before Christ, There was a Pushyamitra,
who lived at the time to which recent speculation appears to the
present writer to be slowly but surely referring Patanjali.' In the
Bhitari Lat inscription it is mentioned that Skandagupta, "the son
of Kumaragupta, who was the son of Chandragupta, who was the son
of Samudragupta, who was the son of Chandragupta, who was the
son of Ghatotkacha, who was the son of Maharaja Sri Gupta, '*
the founder of the later Gupta dynasty, conquered Pushyamitra
^^ffrT^f^^rrr^^^^rf^ '^ f^r^^. This point has been hitherto obscured
from the fact that in Bhao Daji's revised translation of this
inscription, published in the tenth Volume of our Journal, p. 59,
* Pushya ' is, perhaps by a printer's error, enclosed in brackets as if it
were doubtful or conjectural. It is not so in Bhao Daji's own transcript
which follows : and Dr, Bhagvanlal ludraji, to whom I owe this
reference, and who it was that obtained the transcript on which Bhao
Daji worked, assures me that the reading is clearly as I have given
above. (Bhao Daji read ^5f^rr^f^^^t^''5^R^ ^fT^r)- The Pushya-
mitra against whom Skandagupta had to move all his forces, and
employ all his treasure, must have been a formidable opponent : and it
seems to me that it is open to any one who admits that Patanjali is
referring to a living Pushyamitra to prefer this one to that.
* I can only refer hero to the discovery that Kshemendra does not distiu-r
guish between P4nini the grammarian andPAninithe poet, and to the evidence
adduced by Max Miiller from the works of the Chinese pilgrim I'tsiag, Note,
p. 347 ; and my Reports I. p. 39, ?^nd II. p. 61.
AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH.
I took the opportunity of a recent visit to Kotah in Rajputana to
examine and take a fresh rubbing of the inscription at Kansua, near
that town, of which I now offer a revised transcript and translation.
Attention was first called to this interesting and important memorial
of antiquity by Colonel Tod, who published a translation in an
Appendix to Vol. I, of his Annals of Rajasthan. Dr. F. Kielhorn
contributed to Vol. XIII. of the Indian Antiquary a transcript of
the original text, with a short abstract of the contents. I hope it
may be permitted to as warm an admirer as Tod's Book ever had
to say, what is indeed the bare truth, that on this occasion the trans-
lation given to him by his shastris presents hardly a single feature in
common with the original. Dr. Kielhorn's transcript had already
made so much clear. But the inscription is of a nature to warrant a full
translation : and as my rubbing supplies a considerable number of
corrections it does not seem superfluous to give, along with the version
which follows, a revised transcript.
Kielhorn has pointed out that the alphabet used in this inscription
is essentially the same as that of Dr. Biihler's Jhalrapathan inscriptions
published with facsimiles in Vol. V. of the Indian Antiquary. A
difference which Kielhorn draws attention to is that in the Kotah
inscription middle long a " is denoted by a wedge-shaped sign placed
after the consonant, not by the sign /^— ^placed above it." It has to
be added that the wedge-shaped sign in question is hardly, or rather
not at all, distinguishable in form from another wedge which both in
the Jhalrapathan and in the Kotah inscriptions is a constituent part of
the signs for the letters ^ and ^. In the eighth line of Dr. Biihler's fac-
simile of the first Jhalrapathan inscription the word ^c^ H ^c^^^ rt tc| <^r°
supplies in close juxtaposition the syllables 5^ and ^^f. It will be
seen that both have the wedge. The second character differs from
the first in that there the wedge is drawn out from the thin end by
a curve above the line into the "diminutive trident," as Biihler callg
it, which is the ordinary sign for middle long a in the Jhalrapathan
inscriptions. For the letter 5^ compare the word ?7t7fT in the second
line of the same facsimile, where, however, the wedge has got to look
like a mere continuation of the top line,
7
44 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH.
The wedge then being already a constituent part of the sign for 3T
and ^ in this alphabet a difficulty arose when, as here, it came to be
used also for mid' lie long a. The al[)li!ibet, as it previously existed,
indicated the expedient made use of in the Kotah inscription. While
after other letters long a is written by the simple wedge, after ^ and ?
the wedge is drawn out in a curve going above the line, though not to
the same extent as in the older inscriptions.
The only other characters which appear to call for remark are those
for middle short and long i. The two are differentiated, as in other
Sanskrit alphabets, not by the relative position each occupies to its
consonant, nor by any material difference in the shape of the sign, but
by the direction, to the rig:ht or left, the curve takes from the initial
point, which is, as a rule, somewhat thicker than tlie rest of the
character. The neglect of the distinctions I have noticed has, I think,
led Kielhorn to correct ipfi" V. 3 into iFfPr, f^^RTT V. 4 into f^r^R^, and
^^1% V. 9 into 5FT^. In all three cases the right reading would appear
to be on the stone.
This inscription is dated in the 796th year of the Lords of Malava.
It is probable that the Jhalrapathan inscription, which is dated in the
747th year of an unnamed era, is to be referred to the same method of
computing time. The slight difference in the alphabet to which atten-
tion has been drawn is of the kind that might develop in the fifty
years which, on this hypothesis, would separate the two. Neither the
Sivagana of our inscription nor the Durgagana of the Jhalrapathan in-
scription is spoken of as a sovereign monarch :^ and when we find one
spoken of as ruling at Kotah, under a Maurya Emperor, in the year
796 of the Lords of Malava, and the other referred to as ruler in
the year 747, of a town only seventy miles to the south, which has
always been very closely connected with Kotah, it seems natural to
suppose that "Durgagana," and "Sivagana," are of the same stock.
If this be so, it is to be noted that the want of any reference on the
Jhalrapathan inscription speaks of an era which at the time had wide
and undisputed currency.
* Diflferently Kielhorn, who carries the line of Maurya Emperors given here
from Dhavala through a Chirantana to ^amkuka, who was the father of the
Sivagana of our iuBcription. A reference to either transcript will however
show, I think, that it is the ftiendship existing between Dhavala and Samkuka
which is referred to, and that chirantana is not a proper name at all.
AN INSCRIPTION PROM KOTAH. 45
It can be shown that this era of the Lords of Malwa is no other
than that now known as the Vikramaditya era, Snd that it was in
use under this or some such similar name before 644 A. D., the year
in which, according to Mr, Fergusson's ingenious theory, the Vikra-
maditya era was first invented.
When I was at Jhalrapathan I was told by the Brahmans of that
place that they could trace their lineage back to a body of immigrants
from the west country, part of whom halted at Dasapura, while
their own progenitors pushed seventy miles further to the east, and
finally settled where I found their descendants living. Dasapura, they
added, was the old name of the village now called Mandosar near the
station of that name on the Rajputana-Malwa Railway. It will be seen
that this identification, which is an important one, was confirmed by
the inscription about to be referred to. Dasapura as the name of a
town in Malwa occurs in the Hitopadesa.
I knew that the village of Mandosar contained an old inscription
which was probably of very great importance : and what I heard from
the Jhalrapathan Brahmans did not diminish my anxiety to make out a
visit to the place. Unfortunately that proved impracticable at the time.
I was able however to supply Pandit Bhagvanlal with funds for the
journey : and he has put me in possession of his rubbing and transcript.
The Mandosar inscription refers to a temple built by a guild of
weavers, immigrants from the Lat country, who had been hospitably
received at Dasapura, whither they had been attracted by the report
of the virtues of the then ruler of that town, Bandhuvarman, son of
that ornament of kings, Visvavarman.^ But while Bandhuvarman
" I hoard of it from Dr. Bhagvanlal, who got his information from Mr. J. F.
Fleet, into whose hands a rough copy, made at the time by an engineer employed
in the construction of the Railway, was finally put. The inscription is aa
extremely quaint one, and I should much like to publish it in full. But my
friend Mr. Fleet, who has since obtained his own facsimile, destines the in-
scription for his forthcoming Gupta volume : and in deference to whatever
may be his rights of treasure-trove in the matter I willingly refrain from doing
more now than adducing what is necessary to the matter in hand. The
chronological speculations above are however my own.
3 The word I have translated ruler is parthiva. If tho names of all the
rulers of Dasapura ended in varman (compare our ^iyagana and Durgagana
above) we may have here a clue to the Pflithivo Bantivarman at whose court
the Mudrilrdkshasa was written.
46 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH.
ruled over Dasapura, the Earth "with the four seas for her girdle, and
Meru and Kailasa for her fair great breasts," was under the sway of
Kumaragupta. And this temple was erected —
"when four hundred and ninety-three years from the establishment [in
the country ?] of the tribes of the Malavas had passed away.** Whether
ganasthiti here has the meaning I have suggested for it may be matter
of future discussion. I think it will not be disputed that in any case
we have here the same era as that of our Kotah inscription. What is
the era in the 494th year of which Kumaragupta was ruling the wide
earth? This is a question to which I take it there can be but one
answer. It is the era now known as that of Vikramaditya.
This can perhaps be most effectively demonstrated by beginning at
the end, and assuming for the sake of argument what I desire to
prove. Kumaragupta then, let us take it, was reigning in the year 494
of the Malava era, that is, of the Vikramaditya era, that is, in the year
A. D. 438. KumAragupta's earliest and latest known dates, in the era
of his House, are 98 and 129, that is, the years A. D. 407 and 448.
On our hypothesis then the Mandosar inscription falls easily within
the time at which Kumaragupta is known to have been reigning : and
there is no other era known to us which will give us the same result.
The Malava era and the Vikramaditya era are therefore one and the
same.
It is taken for granted in the above that the initial year of the
Gupta era is A. D. 319. But with Oldenberg and Bhandarkar I hold
that no apology is required for such an assumption. Those who still
hesitate may rather fairly be challenged to show how any other theory
of the Gupta era can be made to fit in with the Mandosar inscription.
Mr. Fergusson attempted to get rid of the chronological diflSculties
attaching to King Vikrama of popular story, by the theory that the as-
tronomers who calculated for the monarch who was Kalidasa's patron,
an era to be called after his name, took as the date round which it should
pivot A. D. 544, *' the year in which the great battle of Korur was
fought," but called that year Samvat 600, not Samvat 1, of the new
method of reckoning. While the theory, as so expressed, must now,
1 think, be abandoned, it remains quite possible that Fergusson*s
solution of the chronological difficulties referred to may nevertheless
"turn out to be in the main correct.*' But in that case what happened
AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 47
was not that Vikramaditya's astronomers were so 'careful to provide
a reckoning for past, as well as for present and future time, as Fer-
gusson's theory would make them out to be. Either Vikramaditya was
personally concerned in restoring, not establishing, the old era of the
kings of Malava :* or the common people forgot in his glory all the
other kings who had ever ruled that land. In or after his time the
years took their name from him, as July took that new name from
Divus lulius.
It must not be put out of sight, however, that we may any day
discover that Vikramaditya, as a name of the Malava era, is older than
it has yet been found to be, and that Biihler is right in still holding
to the belief that the Vikrama era, " whieh begins 56 B. C. was really
established by a king of that name who lived before the beginning of
the Christian era.'** That is the natural explanation of the name,
and, as not unfrequently happens, it may ultimately turn out to be the
correct one.
To come back to our inscription, the year in which it is dated cor-
responds, if the foregoing be correct, to A. D. 740. Of the two villages
set apart for the maintenance for ever of the temple, the name of one,
Chaoni, can be seen close to Kotah, in the map of the Trigonometrical
Survey. I have not been able to identify the other. It would be
interesting, and is perhaps possible, to trace the fortunes of an
endowment so solemnly set apart.
Transcript.
1. SHT: ^^^♦trt^H^K^HMlO-HK'^d^ I
^c^^^WFVT^nrr: W:f^ih f^^l: qRrPr^ HMIHMh ltLine 1 ends.
* As Tribhuvanamalla had again to do in 1182 A. D. when the Sakaerahad
for the time in its turn displaced the older method ©f computation. See
references given by Max Muller, * India : What can it teach ub ?' p. 285, note 1.
» Max M tiller, ' India: What can it teach us?' page 385.
Verse 1. a 5f^:^^r5°. sic.
48
AN INSCRIPTION PROM KOTAH,
3. ifW?^^ "?r^RFr^fcTf^rry?»ftr5ff?|Pfffd^^r
%^ ^'^rPTTT^nr^T^r: ^^^t^J: TF3 ^: II tLine 2 ends-
^^^^•^ Jnr^^T^Tfr ^rnr^ r^zTr*:* m-4 4 k ii' hj ch : n
6. •dv^Mi^H"iT^*if^>dd^: ^r^n^RnrpjT^:
7^'^'^H'MifTi'H'chd^rii ?^rr^tJTr ^^ | *
=^i H rH ^mii K<H I J I i'^ 4! ^fNt^r^ p^i^ 11
8. f^ >T^tg 5^ ^^n^ ^r^?yr »# i
9. ^I^MlRHchilf^Si^ii^ ^^ ^: ^ERT
fMr^m" ^RTrT^ ^IrlRri ^T^qTC^rrPTT: \
^tTl^-^i^ll ?J^ q^^tf^^^ NMrilK^f:
^Hl^ir^ Hil^di t 'iiNH jj gftrTT- R^IM I f? II 6
Verse 3. a H>"IIMl'^. Kielhorn 'fT^R'^, corrected into ^Tr^^f^. ^ ^ftrTT-
^^raTf. K. fI?^T^H>iiT. Verse 4. a Eead,with K., ^. ^ f^J. K. f?^5T
corrected to f^^3". The distinction between 2" and ST is very clearly seen iu
the four syllables SfHT^^ here, y sr^^^rrrS". K. ^-qT^TT^- Verse 5. a
^^»^W is throughout so written.— ^q^PTTOt. K. ( f^ ) Hrert.— y Eoad with K.,
C^?1P-^IT^5°. Verse 7. )3 ^^ffT. K. ^IW. S Read, withK., T^W^. Verse 9 a.
Visarga is wanted after ^1TC» K. reads it, but says it is very indistinct. My rub-
bing, which does not show it, may bo defective. But compare two other cases of
an omitted visarga in the noxfc lino. ^ lioad (%«5r^^^ 9^t1Wf :. K corrects.
AN INSCRIPTION PROM KOTAH. 49
g-?rn^rR? t^^ ^^m f^w^ •■ f^\^;f^^^
f^'^l^'i f^Rril rr^^: c^FTTT ^^ <*m\: H fLine 7 ends.
c^s^rs^fPTfT'P^ rr^: ^w^v- ^r^* w
12. ^S^*:i^|c!eTf^ MHKHMii^^'^TW^Erflr^
13. ffipTi" ^TTT rTPTrar^^^TWi" ff^r^^ I
14. ^RT^ ^7T^ fTrrr 'ifKr \\\^m\ ^: I
RT^^ ^?f ^ ^"TT ^ rT^r^F^ TrT: II
16. ^TR^ w^ ^R:rr%«ffT^rT#^^^l'f^rf
t^icMt-mcq?^ zffir ^f^*f rfr%t JTfe^: ^ I 10
R*^^<?(l'> and reads ffrTfT^f^" (" the C very indistinct.") — Ecad ^sItH^W-
rRT:. K. ^iTf'g-iT^'^^rT^r: corrected into ^T^f^T^^fRF:. y Road with K.
f^^^HK^r. ^S =K^^. K. (f^^of )rff. Compare my translation. Verse 10.
y Read ^'TrSTT^ which is K.'s reading of the stone. — Correct, with K. f^f
fi ^: W^ sic. Verse 11. a K. 11:5^^^ (^=^N^) Trfjq-. /3 jt<^. q^^^ tj^q
Btone is injured here. ^ f^ is throughout the inscription written f^".
Verse 12. a K. gfT^. ^ Read vpf?^ K. ^jf^t5^°. § k. rT^ [r^'*W^]rf:
Verse 13. a K. ft^V^ * Anusvdra or uncertain.' ^ K. [^:] fTrfiJorr [^iT:].
Verse 14. y K. ?FT%. Verse 15. y Read JflTT^. K. 5rrrr(^#)(^. K.
rfST^. 5 K. sffrf^rcTJTjfr.— K. ^prWfr^n^rr: Verse 16. a K. ^%rf : cor-
rected into ^^W« The correct form is quite distinct, ^ being written as
in Jain MSS. mT» except that two wedges take the place of the two lines.
y K. corrects ^ into ^. Compare my translation.
50 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH.
17. swrr^'^m'jftr^ 5^rf^P%=^Hifrr
18. grr&^^nTT^^^r rr^^ rtn h <i csf ^'^tc^'pr-rt
cfil«^HT f^^PTT^ ^^^r» ^1 n 'itHTfk ^ HI * I f^^ I
19. Tt ViR*l'4> ^ I' K<H ^ * I if^ii MH n i : I
20. ^TTf^rq^^T^rr^^ ^jP^^^f^t^TT I
iTP^^ ^^ 'ftPT: ^rWrfNtf^sRfi" II
21. M i rt^^^ ^q-f: ^ w ^Ritzr >T% I
^ ^ % ^^^ ^ 'irf^ tf^NH^ II 13
22. ^4HK^MK ^ ^^ >^'='f%3^ I
rnrf^iT^^Tc^r ^ ^F^ft '^ftr^ "^ II
23. ^Tr^^^TFirf 5^^ ^TTTf '^ ^^^TTT I
24. ^r^c^R^t^: yq-r^H^ctMJjff?: I 14
^nr^j^Tfet^rnTT ^f^ ^^^-.-f ^^ II
25. 3TW5^: ?^^rf^ '^ RT^^Tf^KTrT: ^T^ I
26. ^: sm^ R?rnTRTr 5F^=?Fr: ^^t^: i
27. ^tch?*^"? f^r^^^ ff^f^^^ ^5^r I
^3^r ^g-^^HT^^ t^5^^: II 15
28. ^irarr 3T»fr fTrrr tPtt 'm^^^is'^^^: I
fi^Tg^Tt ^J"lldM^ ^^>^T^ T^'^T^: II
Verso 17. /3 K. ^rp%.— K. °3r;^^^^°. Verse 18. a K. ^r^=^.— K.
^4rl"^. Verso 19. a K.° ^^ift the " f being, very faintly visible." ^
Bead ^M. Verse 20 ^ Read perhaps 5rr^ ^T(|^q( jfp-;. K. 58% =ftf^
evidently stands for 3T53^rfff^:. Verse 21. a Read, with K. ^fT. Verse 23.
y Bead rl^^n^:. Verse 24 a K. "the expression sa-argala for adhika I have
not met with anywhere else." Sapanchanavatyargalaih is perhaps better
explained as a bahuvrihi compound, the first member of which is Sapanch-
anavati " 90 plus 5, and the second, argala, in the sense of " farthest limit."
Verse 25. y K. mm^ ^T^^JI^: § Verso 26. « K. ^^^'.—^ Eoad with
K. >nHr^f^^^. Verse 28. a Bead H^qT. K. f[r^] H=5fqr.
AN INSCRIPTION PROM KOTAH. 51
29. fTrfrgFTcr^ript ^Jr-^T ^^^TWt ^ I
30. zrfrr^ 3T^^ s ^ ^ H' JTT^fnf 5 ^^ 1
?rcgo% grgf^ t^^T »m74 I^^^r^l 1 tLine I6 ends
Translation.
Om ! Adoration to oiva ! Om !
1. Adoration to 6ambhu through Whom it is that we are able to
cross life's whole sea, Whose is the Hand let down to us that are all
fallen in the Pit of Darkness.^
2. May Sambhu's matted locks protect you — locks that delight by
conditions (moods) wide apart : for here they are bright as the
White Land with the countless rays of the moon falling upon them,
there dark with the heavy folds of the Monarch of Serpents that
lie ever upon them : here hot with the flashes of his eye, there
cold indeed with the plashing waters of the Daughter of Jahnu.''
3. May Sambhu's matted locks protect you — locks whose orna-
ments are ever intermingling : for over all of them there lie the quiver-
ing rays of the moon that are blended with the lustre of the jewel in the
Great Serpent's hood : and in some places they are streaked with the
smoke-encircled tawny tongues of flame from the fire of his eye, in
others dashed with the pearly drops of spray thrown up by the River
of the Gods.
Verse 29 a. He first wrote ^TfcffhT^. — Read with K. H%fT.
^ ^rfHti'-llrl is given by Bohtlingk (Smaller Dictionary) as a word for which
no reference was available. f<:fi|rt'-«^ is the same as f^tKMrJ'^^ a word which
B R e3qplain as meaning " that which the hands lay hold of." I have suggested
another way of taking the word. Compare the verse which B R refer to : —
^ Siva wears the Moon as his crest jewel, and the serpent Sesha coils its
folds over his head, through his matted locks the Ganges finds a path as it
descends from heaven to become an earthly stream.
8
5 2 AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH.
4. May Sthanu's Head protect you. It is a lake whose lotus charms
the eye.^ That lotus is the great braid of hair : and the mud to which
it clings loosely is the great serpent that ever lazily swims on the
water of the heavenly Ganges. It is a lake where the moon's rays
quietly shining, appear like many lotus stalks seen between the white
skulls that are its lotus-flowers.
5. Lo He begins to dance and his toes keep measure with the
beat : he has bound together the weight of those locks that are reddened
with the tongues of flame from the flashing fire that has its home in
his deep-sunk eye : he has put straight the moon's orb that is bright
with its nectar-like rays : and with his two hands he has pulled tight
the serpent from whose knotted face the fire of the poison is up-
springing. May this Sthanu protect the world.
6. The Maurya line is seen to be like the deep (noble) sea : it
illuminates the world with the moon of its crest-jewel (the moon as its
crest-jewel) is the refuge of great princes (great serpents) : it is able to
protect kings (mountains) tbat are in pain and trouble through fear of
the destruction of their forces (wings) : to it come armies (rivers) from
far and wide : it is bright with all manner of precious possessions
(jewels): and in it fortune dwells.
7. The kings of that line— like World Elephants — greatly glad-
dening good men with the light of their faces bright with gifts (the juice
that exudes from the temples of elephants) — exalted in their pride,
roam at large over the earth' confidently and undaunted of heart :
praised too for their friendliness (bhadra, a kind of elephant) and
- - - - ? they are glorious for their race, more glorious for their
virtues.
8. Such were these kings and they reigned over the whole earth.
And among them there arose king Dhavala, himself, by reason of his
fame, as resplendent (dhavala = white) as his name.
9. Through their own faults heaped up in the sight of all men
from day to day by sins of thought, word, and deed, this king's enemies
were by him at once conquered and made kings (wandering beggars)
like evil spirits naked and ever hungry, with new terrors appearing
each day, they wander by night from door to door of the stranger.
1 0. Not once or twice did he the mighty and valorous one by his
own right hand adorn over again the fields of fight— deserted of timid
* Literally " like a lake charming by means of the lotus," &c. It is no easy
matter to render this style into English in a way that shall not be absolutely
unreadable.
AN INSCRIPTION FROM KOTAH. 53
men with the severed heads of his enemies for lotuses torn from their
stalks, though these fields were already adorned with the pearls that had
fallen from the elephant temples he had cloven asunder in his wrath,
and garnished with broad streams of blood.
11-12. Now a king Sri Sankuka by name had long been this
man's intimate and dear friend. Though a brahmin this Saukuka
bore arms and took such joy in them that he was a very vessel of ac-
ceptable offerings to the King of the Dead. He was famed for his
virtues. Even now the spirit-haunted fields of fight, full of the mur-
mur of the rivers of the blood of his foes slowly drying up speak of
his pastime in the courts of war. To Dhavala Sankuka was what the
meaning is to the significant word, what the Path of the so-called
Triad (the three Vedas) is to the Law. He was pure at heart and a
very Root of Good Conduct - - . . ?
13. He had a lawful wife, by name Dengini, of the people of the
twice-bora. She bore to him a son — a hero, who paid due respect
to merit.
14. King Sivagana, glorious, handsome, liberal and fortunate.
Surely he was once (in a previous birth) that gana (host) of Siva
since he became now his devotee.
15. Not once or twice did he wrestle, pleased at heart in the field of
war, the field made frightful by the noise that issued from the open ends
of the throats of the headless corpses that were their own funeral pyre,
on which they burnt with the flame lit by the flashes of fire that rose
from their arrows as it was cloven by the sword stroke — the field where
the spirits of the dead saw with pleasure the blood vomited by the fowls
of the air as they rose in terror from the faces gashed by the arrows that
still adhered to them.*
16. But the good know assuredly that life is full of all manner of
troubles — old age, bereavement, and death — and that * one thing only is
needful ' here : therefore did this man cause to be built this temple of
the Most High God, to but look on Whom is for all people to wash from
their bodies the stain of Time.
17. When asoka-trees in flower perfumed the air, when the mango
was in blossom, and East, West, North, and South were beset with
swarms of drunken and staggering bees, when Love spoke only of the
* The birds were wounded or frightened : and the spirits of the air get
blood to drink without haviag to go further.
54 AN INSCRIPTION FEOM KOTAH.
coquettish glances of women folk, here in the hermitage of Kanva thi^
man piously built a fair House for Siva.
18. At the time when women, brought face to face with their lorers,
with a laugh bend low and half close their eyes, as they think of all
they show on breasts laid bare by the motion of the swing, and speak
the love they feel only by their knotted brows.
19. And when those whose lords are absent, let fall a tear as they
mark how all round them the place is adorned with mango-trees on
which the drunken bees are humming.
20. For incense, perfumes or light, and for repairs, two villages
Sarvatka and Chaoni, have been assigned in perpetuity.
21. Let all kings whose this land may be maintain this gift: if
they do so for righteousness sake assuredly they will come to Siva's,
heavenly home.
22. This is a Bridge of Righteousness over which assuredly such
an one may transport himself and his parents'* across life's awful sea.
23. His fame shall endure as long as the earth with her seas, hills,
and groves, as long as the sun and moon shall burn.
24. When 795 years of the kings of Malava had gone this temple of
oiva was built.
25. The architect was Asabdagana (?) — a man free from avarice,
kindly spoken, and always a true worshipper of Siva.
26. The writer here is Gomika's son Raupuka, a man clever, wise,
modest of heart, devoted to his guru, kind spoken.
27-8. Sivanaga, Dvarasiva's son engraved this : Devafca, Bhattasura-
bhi's son composed with faithful heart these verses that are bright as
the scriptures, and full of the nectar distilled from the moon on His
crest. And the virtuous Nannaka, Krishna's son, was the Sutradhara
here.
29. Forasmuch as the hermitage of Kanva is blessed and able
to take away all sin : therefore in it has been built this temple of
Sambhu, whereby that one's merit and fame shall increase.
30. Whatever mistakes there may be in the joinings or words or
matras these I pray the learned of all time kindly to forgive.
•BR give this as a meaning of T^ for which no reference was available.
M152333
73^
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Open Library