5. Non-Tājika Works and Authorities Cited

The quotations that make up the greater part of the Hāyanaratna are chiefly, but not solely, taken from Tājika authors. Quotations from non-Tājika works, most numerous in the first chapter, may be classified as astronomical, astrological, and miscellaneous. The last category includes general statements on philosophical topics such as fate (daiva) and free will (puruṣakāra, literally ‘human effort’) or on socio-religious codes of action (dharma), attributed to ancient sages without specifying any textual sources, to the even less specific smṛti ‘[religious] tradition’, or occasionally not attributed at all. Most but not all of these quotations have been traced, although some may be designated as Wanderstrophe, so that the sources actually employed by Balabhadra remain somewhat conjectural. In fact, as mentioned above, substantial parts appear to have been lifted directly from Govinda Daivajña’s Pīyūṣadhārā, so that the real question becomes that of Govinda’s source texts (with which Balabhadra himself may or may not have been acquainted). Even where a title is given, the work in question may sometimes, as in the case of the Viṣṇuyāmala, be too amorphous for a quotation to be located within it.

In the field of mathematical astronomy, Balabhadra’s foremost authority is his own teacher Rāma Daivajña, panegyrized with extravagant epithets: ‘the royal swan roaming the lake encompassing all [astronomical] schools, the lion among those who have mastered the subtleties of the science of mathematics’. Rāma is quoted on a number of topics, often without mention of the name of the work in question, although some passages are attributed to the Paddhaticintāmaṇi or the Siddhāntacintāmaṇi –titles which may or may not refer to a single work and which are not mentioned by Pingree.^[1] A single reference simply to the Cintāmaṇi (not explicitly connected with Rāma) may likewise be a shorthand version of one or both these titles. The Rāmavinoda is mentioned in passing but never quoted.

Balabhadra’s allegiance seems not to lie with any single school or pakṣa of astronomical calculation, and he quotes his father Dāmodara on the subject:

But as there are [many astronomical] schools such as the Brāhma, Saura and Ārya, according to which school should [the places of ] the planets be established? Thus it is said in the Dāmodarapaddhati: ‘The true [places of the] planets should be established by [the method of] that school according to which they coincide with calculation by observation at that time.’^[2]

As already mentioned, Balabhadra states that he and Dāmodara had written commentaries on the Bījagaṇita and the Brahmatulya (or Karaṇakutūhala), respectively, both works authored by Bhāskara II and belonging to the Brāhmapakṣa. These works are quoted once and twice, respectively, in the Hāyanaratna, and the Siddhāntaśiromaṇi by the same author, eight times; there is also a single, unverified quotation attributed to a Brahmasiddhānta. But Balabhadra likewise quotes the Sūryasiddhānta three times and Jñānarāja’s Siddhāntasundara of the Saurapakṣa once and claims to have written a commentary on the Makaranda of the same school, and to rely on its values for his elaborate example calculation of Shāh Shujāʿ’s revolution figure (section 8.3). He also includes a single reference to a Vasiṣṭhasiddhānta, and some of his mathematical procedures in chapter 8 appear to be influenced by the Grahalāghava authored by Gaṇeśa Daivajña of Nandigrāma.

References to non-Tājika astrological works are relatively sparse. Varāhamihira (fl. sixth century), arguably the greatest authority of classical Indian astrology, is quoted about ten times, mostly referring to his Bṛhajjātaka but once to the Laghujātaka and once to the Bṛhatsaṃhitā. One of the three statements attributed to the sage Garga may also have been taken from the Bṛhatsaṃhitā; the other two remain unidentified, as do the single references to Satya, Māṇḍavya and Bādarāyaṇa. The Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā is quoted three times and the Nāradasaṃhitā twice, one of the verses from the latter also occurring in the Nāradapurāṇa as well as in the Kaśyapasaṃhitā, which is quoted separately once. While the mythical or semi-mythical sages after which they are named were cited as authorities by Varāhamihira and other early writers, the dates of these saṃhitās in their current forms are uncertain.^[3] Vasantarāja’s eleventh-century Śakunārṇava, which deals primarily with omens rather than astrology proper, is likewise quoted once,^[4] and Keśavārka’s Vivāhavṛndāvana (circa thirteenth century) twice.^[5] The last chapter of the Hāyanaratna quotes twice from the section on ‘daily transits’ (dinacaryā) in the Saṃvitprakāśa authored by Govinda Kavīśvara, although the author’s name is not given by Balabhadra.^[6] As Govinda does not state the date of his work, the earliest known manuscript of which (1696 CE) postdates the Hāyanaratna, all we can say for certain is that it is was composed before 1649.^[7] The same chapter quotes once from the Bhūpālavallabha, which may be the original work of that name or perhaps the abridged version authored by Paraśu-or Parśurāma in 1356 CE, the Paraśurāmopadeśa.^[8]

A few unidentified sources have no obvious Tājika content and may be works on classical Indian astrology. Chapter 6 contains two passages of ten stanzas each quoted from a Cūḍāmaṇi, the former of which reads like a work on interrogations;^[9] the same chapter depends for its list of significations of the twelve horoscopic houses on one Caṇḍeśvara, who may have been a Tājika author but on balance probably was not.^[10] The quoted work, never named, may have been a treatise on interrogations;^[11] one such, the Praśnavidyā or Praśnacaṇḍeśvara, is attributed by Pingree to either of two authors named Caṇḍeśvara (fl. 1185 and 1314, respectively).^[12] Caṇḍeśvara is further quoted once in chapter 1 and twice in chapter 8, the very last quotation apparently referring to ‘King Caṇḍeśvara’ (caṇḍeśvaranṛpoditam).

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Cf. note 47.

[2]:

See section 1.8.

[3]:

Pingree (1981: 103) dates the Nāradasaṃhitā to ‘sometime before about 1365’ and the Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā to the fifteenth century or earlier, giving no terminus post quem for either.

[4]:

Pingree (1981: 76; 1970–1994 A5: 598b) dates the Śakunārṇava to the 1090s.

[5]:

According to Pingree (1970–1994 A2: 75a), Keśavārka’s floruit falls in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, though in a later publication (1981: 135) he gives ‘XII/XIII’.

[6]:

This Saṃvitprakāśa should not be confused with the Vaiṣṇava idealist treatise of the same name, authored by Vāmanadatta in Kashmir in the eleventh century or earlier.

[7]:

See Pingree 1970–1994 A2: 136b; A3: 34b; A4: 84b; A5 96b f.

[8]:

See Pingree 1970–1994 A4: 194a–b; A5 212b f. Pingree apparently considered the Bhūpālavallabha to be identical with the Paraśurāmopadeśa: although listing an incongruously voluminous manuscript with the former title (608 ff., attributed to Varāhamihira), he does not comment on the statement that he himself quotes from Par[a]śurāma to the effect that the latter work is a mere abridgement of a much longer text (whether by the same or a different author is not explicitly stated):

bhūpālavallabho granthaḥ kṛtaḥ pūrvaṃ savistaraḥ |
tataḥ paraśurāmopadeśaḥ svalpo viracyate ||
śrīkṛṣṇadevaputreṇa parśurāmopadeśakaḥ |
grantho’yaṃ cātivistīrṇaḥ (read -vistīrṇāt?) kriyate bhūpavallabhāt ||

Possibly Pingree’s view was influenced by that of Katre (1942), from whose manuscript of the text these two stanzas appear to have been missing, and who rejected the suggestion (received prior to publication) that the two works are different. However, the section colophons cited by Atle (1943), also referenced by Pingree, confirm that the Paraśurāmopadeśa is an abridgement (iti śrībhūpālavallabhe sāroddhāre parśurāmopadeśe), although a shortened version of the formula is sometimes used (iti śrībhūpālavallabhe parśurāmopadeśe, with variants).

[9]:

A commentary of that name on the Tājika work of Padmanābha (see below) exists, but is written in prose.

[10]:

The quotation in section 6.1 mentions ‘Yavana’ or ‘the Yavanas’ (which may as well refer to Greeks as to Persians, etc.), and that in 6.5 assigns the father to the fourth house (which is, admittedly, unusual in non-Tājika works); but there is no explicit Tājika terminology in the quotations, while they do contain frequent references to Indian cultural phenomena.

[11]:

See the quotation in section 6.1: ‘[…] one should judge queries and so on.’

[12]:

Pingree 1970–1994 A3: 41a; the former attribution is repeated in A5: 105b. I have not seen this text, which is different from and apparently more extensive than the work by the same title attributed to a certain Rāmakṛṣṇa (see Pingree 1970–1994 A5: 453a).